The Taliban Syndrome

[S.A.M.]

I wonder, why do you suppose the polytheistic Greek Philosophers and polytheistic Japanese Shinto openly accepted Buddhism. Certainly the Japanese were conservative people? Yet there are Buddhist temples as part of Shinto shrines and Shinto Shrines within Buddhist Temples.


Interesting huh?


"Religious zeal may take two divergent paths. A man may prove his religiosity by living the noble ideals and values of his faith. This, however, is a demanding option. The cheap alternative is to exalt one's God by bringing down all other Gods. If you project yourself as the enemy of your neighbour's God then, maybe, your God could be fooled into believing that you are his man."


Which path do you think that the Prophet Mohammad took and why and which path do you think the Philosopher Buddha took and why?

Depends on what you consider their noble ideals. I think Mohammed was a man who taught people to live good lives, with their families and communities. In my opinion, Buddha was an escapist, whose way of life was (again IMHO) meant for those with little interest in anything other than themselves. Buddhism has little appeal for a family man.

[Prince_James]

SamCDKey:

That strongly depends on what type of Buddhism we are discussing. There is also a strong difference between Buddhist laymen and Buddhist clergy. The clergy, obviously, must adhere to more stringent rules of behaviour, intended towards apprehension of nirvana.

[Michael]

edit: an interesting article.

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1103/75.html

It had a rather ominous tone! I could almost here a JAWS like da da da da da da da..>>>!!!!!

There is no doubt in my mind the English will continue to become Atheists. Perhaps various life philosophies will emerge the new "religions"?


edit Jews is now JAWS like as in the movie JAWS!! But re-reading it and thinking of Jews with the theme from Jaws made me LOL

[S.A.M.]

SamCDKey:

That strongly depends on what type of Buddhism we are discussing. There is also a strong difference between Buddhist laymen and Buddhist clergy. The clergy, obviously, must adhere to more stringent rules of behaviour, intended towards apprehension of nirvana.

Sure, but Buddhism per se is an individualistic creed. I think that is the reason it is so attractive to Westerners too.

I also think that is the reason it ultimately failed in India.

[Michael]

That strongly depends on what type of Buddhism we are discussing. There is also a strong difference between Buddhist laymen and Buddhist clergy. The clergy, obviously, must adhere to more stringent rules of behavior, intended towards apprehension of nirvana.

Depends on what you consider their noble ideals. I think Mohammed was a man who taught people to live good lives, with their families and communities. In my opinion, Buddha was an escapist, whose way of life was (again IMHO) meant for those with little interest in anything other than themselves. Buddhism has little appeal for a family man.

Well I suppose it depends on if you consider a polygamist a good family man! Haaa sorry about that! But really, my culture says no (and actually you once told me you disapprove of polygamy).

James is correct. Some teachers, doctors, scientists, and yes clergy (EX: Mother Terissa (sp?)) ect.. dedicate their lives so that others will benefit from wisdom. My friend uses Buddhas technique to feel at peace. He is far from living a life of an escapist. But, yes, if he does eat a lot of meat or drink too much too often then the technique doesn't work as well.

The QUOTE was:
"Religious zeal may take two divergent paths. A man may prove his religiosity by living the noble ideals and values of his faith. This, however, is a demanding option. The cheap alternative is to exalt one's God by bringing down all other Gods. If you project yourself as the enemy of your neighbour's God then, maybe, your God could be fooled into believing that you are his man."

So I think the assumption is the person with "Religious zeal" will take two paths. Which path did Buddha and which path did Mohammad take?

[S.A.M.]

You're avoiding my questions.

No I find your questions a little silly , so I just gave you the link to Indonesian religions to show you why I thought they were silly questions.

Plus, you appear to have some strange notions of Islam which reflect Wahabism rather than Islam, and I've already answered them before so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by asking me again.

Plus I'm also doing SAS so I'm not completely focused.

[Michael]

see Edit about Jews = JAWS .. too funny!

[S.A.M.]

The QUOTE was:
"Religious zeal may take two divergent paths. A man may prove his religiosity by living the noble ideals and values of his faith. This, however, is a demanding option. The cheap alternative is to exalt one's God by bringing down all other Gods. If you project yourself as the enemy of your neighbour's God then, maybe, your God could be fooled into believing that you are his man."

So I think the assumption is the person with "Religious zeal" will take two paths. Which path did Buddha and which path did Mohammad take?

That shows how much you know about Islam then.
Why do you think Islam has a better record of religious tolerance as compared to other religions, considering how widespread it is? Muhammed was as respected among the Jews and Byzantine Christians as he was among the Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reforms...Islam_(610-661)

[Michael]

Plus I'm also doing SAS so I'm not completely focused.

What's that?


Ooo don't worry about those questions - for now. But, IMHO, Buddha seems to have taken the path of Meditation (as he is famous for) and as for Mohammad I don't think he is renown for Mediation (is he), usually, or so I thought, he hears something in his head from "God" and then conquered the evil wicked polytheistic Arab neighbors. It seems rather like he took door #2!


Anyway, I'm just about ready to re-submit a pain in the arse of a manuscript so please tell Allah to see that this one is accepted! If he has any sway of the editorial board anyway

MII

[Michael]

That shows how much you know about Islam then.
Why do you think Islam has a better record of religious tolerance as compared to other religions, considering how widespread it is? Muhammed was as respected among the Jews and Byzantine Christians as he was among the Muslims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_as_a_diplomat

Sam, there used to be a chain of Christian monestaries along the Eastern Arabian coast. They all fell to Armies of Islam. I can not imagine why Byzantine Christians would be so happy to see that?



Secondly, I was not talking about People of the Book, I specifically made mention to polytheistic Arabs.

[S.A.M.]

What's that?


Ooo don't worry about those questions - for now. But, IMHO, Buddha seems to have taken the path of Meditation (as he is famous for) and as for Mohammad I don't think he is renown for Mediation (is he), usually, or so I thought, he hears something in his head from "God" and then conquered the evil wicked polytheistic Arab neighbors. It seems rather like he took door #2!


Anyway, I'm just about ready to re-submit a pain in the arse of a manuscript so please tell Allah to see that this one is accepted! If he has any sway of the editorial board anyway

MII

SAS is an invention of Satan.

And don't worry, Inallaha ma'as-Saabereen (God is with those who are patient).

[Michael]

Not to mention that little ditty that Pope mentioned from the then Byzantine empiror? Something about Mohammad only brought war and intolerance?

Anyway, my point was specific to the polytheist Arabs or Medina and Mecca...

[S.A.M.]

Sam, there used to be a chain of Christian monestaries along the Eastern Arabian coast. They all fell to Armies of Islam. I can not imagine why Byzantine Christians would be so happy to see that?



Secondly, I was not talking about People of the Book, I specifically made mention to polytheistic Arabs.

They weren't polytheistic, they were idolators.

Besides they had socially unacceptable practices and Muhammed was primarily a social reformer.

[S.A.M.]

Not to mention that little ditty that Pope mentioned from the then Byzantine empiror? Something about Mohammad only brought war and intolerance?

Anyway, my point was specific to the polytheist Arabs or Medina and Mecca...

That guy was a loser, look him up.

[Michael]

SAS seems more like a corporate thing? Why are you using it?

[S.A.M.]

SAS seems more like a corporate thing? Why are you using it?

Nope its a statistical analysis software. I use it for my data analysis, with SigmaPlot.

I have DXAs all day and analysis all evening for the whole week Gah!

[Michael]

They weren't polytheistic, they were idolators.

I seriously just LOL Pffff LOL....

sorry about that but really I was laughing quite a bit there That so did not sound like you. As a matter of fact, not it was the SAS talking!

Sam Sam Sam - sometimes we love you here in AU

Take care, I have to scat cat ...


Cheers,
Michael II

[Michael]

That guy was a loser, look him up.

LOL - are you really being witty and funny or am I in on my own joke or what....??? coffee I need coffee....

[S.A.M.]

LOL - are you really being witty and funny or am I in on my own joke or what....??? coffee I need coffee....

Seriously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus

Although John V had been restored, Manuel was forced to go as an honorary hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I at Prousa (Bursa). During his stay, Manuel was forced to participate in the Ottoman campaign that reduced Philadelpheia, the last Byzantine enclave in Anatolia.


Hearing of his father's death in February 1391, Manuel II Palaiologos fled the Ottoman court and secured the capital against any potential claim by his nephew John VII. Although relations with John VII improved, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I besieged Constantinople from 1394 to 1402. After some five years of siege, Manuel II entrusted the city to his nephew and embarked on a long trip abroad to seek assistance against the Ottoman Empire from the courts of western Europe, including those of Henry IV of England (making him the only Byzantine emperor ever to visit England - he was welcomed from December 1400 to January 1401 at Eltham Palace, and a joust was given in his honour[1]), Charles VI of France, the Holy Roman Empire, Queen Margaret I of Denmark and from Aragon.

Meanwhile an anti-Ottoman crusade led by the Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxemburg failed at the Battle of Nicopolis on September 25, 1396, but the Ottomans were themselves crushingly defeated by Timur at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. As the sons of Bayezid I struggled with each other over the succession in the Ottoman Interregnum, John VII was able to secure the return of the European coast of the Sea of Marmara and of Thessalonica to the Byzantine Empire. When Manuel II returned home in 1403, his nephew duly surrendered control of Constantinople and was rewarded with the governorship of newly recovered Thessalonica.

Manuel II Palaiologos used this period of respite to bolster the defenses of the Despotate of Morea, where the Byzantine Empire was actually expanding at the expense of the remnants of the Latin Empire. Here Manuel supervised the building of the Hexamilion wall (six-mile wall) across the Isthmus of Corinth, intended to defend the Peloponnese from the Ottomans.

Manuel II stood on friendly terms with the victor in the Ottoman civil war, Mehmed I (1402–1421), but his attempts to meddle in the next contested succession led to a new assault on Constantinople by Murad II (1421–1451) in 1422. During the last years of his life, Manuel II relinquished most official duties to his son and heir John VIII Palaiologos, and in 1424 they were forced to sign an unfavorable peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks, whereby the Byzantine Empire was forced to pay tribute to the sultan. Manuel II died on 21 July 1425.

[Zakariya04]

Dear Sam,

I have now read the intial post and indeed it is very interesting.

i do agree witha lot of what this dude says, the sort of thing i have been trying to say for a while but obviously not with the same articulation.


thanks a lot sam

~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak