|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| So Americans are becoming Buddhist and Koreans are becoming Christian. It's like musical chairs with superstitious belief systems. |
I think the Buddhism thing in America is just people being educated enough to finally see through Christianity, but have still been raised with beliefs all their lives, and find it hard to just totally throw religion out the door. So they find one that is much less a religion than a way of thinking. I hope and think Buddhism will prevail, but I believe even that will fade away in the annals of history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Maserial
Joined: 31 Jul 2005
Location: The Web
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flotsam wrote: |
Sorry, Sir. You are redefining god. Thus making it easy to describe Buddhists as non-atheists. However, at its essence, Buddhism does not distinguish between universe and self and therefore there can be no distinct entity of god. What is, is sacred, holy or divine if you need to describe it in such a way, but what is most important to a Buddhist is to see it as what is, with no clouding of what it..er..is.
Shame on you.
P.S. Einstein's understanding of Buddhism was shaky at best, self-serving and self-consoling at worst. |
That's impressive. Could you ask Troll_Bait to redefine sexy, insomuch that I epitomize it in the eyes of all women? (Well, not those racing girls, or the proletariat, but you get the idea.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maserial wrote: |
| flotsam wrote: |
Sorry, Sir. You are redefining god. Thus making it easy to describe Buddhists as non-atheists. However, at its essence, Buddhism does not distinguish between universe and self and therefore there can be no distinct entity of god. What is, is sacred, holy or divine if you need to describe it in such a way, but what is most important to a Buddhist is to see it as what is, with no clouding of what it..er..is.
Shame on you.
P.S. Einstein's understanding of Buddhism was shaky at best, self-serving and self-consoling at worst. |
That's impressive. Could you ask Troll_Bait to redefine sexy, insomuch that I epitomize it in the eyes of all women? (Well, not those racing girls, or the proletariat, but you get the idea.) |
Shame on you.
And shame on Racetraitor for that unbalanced, off the handle assessment of Buddhism. Essential Buddhism has no superstitions. If you want to pick on regulatory codes, that's fine. Or you can pick on the Pure Landers, that'll work as well. But don't generalize there, skinny. It's kind of like saying atheists have no morals, you see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| I think the Buddhism thing in America is just people being educated enough to finally see through Christianity, but have still been raised with beliefs all their lives, and find it hard to just totally throw religion out the door. So they find one that is much less a religion than a way of thinking. I hope and think Buddhism will prevail, but I believe even that will fade away in the annals of history. |
Its there to stay. It roots back to Jack Kerouac, Gary Snyder, etc. back in the 1950s Beat Generation. Kerouac's writing is drenched with the snuff.. as is Snyder's poetry.
California in particularly has always been well-known for its type of Western Buddhism. Alan Watts who died in 1973.. all are really well-known particularly in the West.
I'd definetely say its here to stay.. as they've all contributed so much in the literature and publishing this stuff.. influenced many generations up to today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
It roots back to Jack Kerouac, Gary Snyder, etc. back in the 1950s Beat Generation. Kerouac's writing is drenched with the snuff.. as is Snyder's poetry.
|
For the love of god, please do not mention that cretin in the same breath as Professor Snyder. And yes, I am taking exception, but whereas Kerouac's poetry is "drenched" with Buddhism, mainly that schmuck's un-understanding of it, young Gary is the Buddhist bard of the new millenium, thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. Similarly, Freud knew psychology but his writings on the origins of religion were amateurish.
I have no idea whether Buddhism counts as a religion or not. But an increase from a quarter of a percent to a half a percent of north America is hardly a mass conversion- especially when some of those people are likely immigrants who already were Buddhist!
People look at our corner of the world and say faith is disappearing into history. The growth and expansion of the major faiths outside of north America and Europe alone should tell us that numerically it is not.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. Similarly, Freud knew psychology but his writings on the origins of religion were amateurish.
I have no idea whether Buddhism counts as a religion or not. But an increase from a quarter of a percent to a half a percent of north America is hardly a mass conversion- especially when some of those people are likely immigrants who already were Buddhist!
People look at our corner of the world and say faith is disappearing into history. The growth and expansion of the major faiths outside of north America and Europe alone should tell us that numerically it is not.
Ken:> |
1. Other estimates say 3 million.
2. It's 2/3 immigrants-immigrant familes; 1/3 converts-people who have realized the idea of a god is just plain silly. That's .5 to 1 million people depending on which stats you believe. Think of those numbers outside of the context of a United States population ratio, and it's just a lot of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. Similarly, Freud knew psychology but his writings on the origins of religion were amateurish.
I have no idea whether Buddhism counts as a religion or not. But an increase from a quarter of a percent to a half a percent of north America is hardly a mass conversion- especially when some of those people are likely immigrants who already were Buddhist!
People look at our corner of the world and say faith is disappearing into history. The growth and expansion of the major faiths outside of north America and Europe alone should tell us that numerically it is not.
Ken:> |
It's growing among uneducated poor people. All of the more educated countries are throwing off the yokes of organized religions, finally. When those countries have hit first world level, you will see it start to die there too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kato
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from m-w:
"Main Entry: athe�ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| So Americans are becoming Buddhist and Koreans are becoming Christian. It's like musical chairs with superstitious belief systems. |
What superstitions are you referring to? When Buddha died, he just died. He didn't decompose for three days before getting up, walking out of his own tomb, visiting his peeps, and finally floating up, up, and away.
Granted, there are some fantastic stories surrounding his death: his feet bursting through the bottom of his coffin, the lid flying open, and his body levitating up off the ground. In fact, there are a lot of incredible stories about Buddha, like him healing a man whose legs had been cut off by a tyrant, bringing statues to life, and teleporting through walls. But nobody, not even Buddhists, believe them anymore. We see them for what they are -mythical exploits accreted onto a historical figure. The Dalai Lama himself once said that he personally prefers to think of the Buddha as a historical figure.
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. Similarly, Freud knew psychology but his writings on the origins of religion were amateurish.
I have no idea whether Buddhism counts as a religion or not. But an increase from a quarter of a percent to a half a percent of north America is hardly a mass conversion- especially when some of those people are likely immigrants who already were Buddhist!
People look at our corner of the world and say faith is disappearing into history. The growth and expansion of the major faiths outside of north America and Europe alone should tell us that numerically it is not.
Ken:> |
Red:
Sorry, but I see this as jealousy on the part of theologists. I don't really blame them, since theologists study God full-time, and scientists only think about God in their spare time, so of course they want to defend their "territory" from people they see as rank "amateurs." Scientists study the natural world, and come to realize how structured, complex, and orderly the universe is. They don't try to find God in some disputable, 4,000-year-old book of legends; they find concrete evidence of Him, here and now, in the world all around us. In my view, the average scientist knows God better than the average priest.
| Galileo Galilei wrote: |
| I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. |
I'd be jealous, too. If someone taught ESL as a hobby, in his spare time, but nevertheless did it better than I, I'd be upset, too.
Green:
Actually, I have to agree. Even if the number of Buddhists in America is as high as three million, that's still a tiny number in a nation of 280 million. From statistics I've read, in both the U.S. and Canada, the number of Buddhists is only about 1%, a tiny minority that is easily bullied. My sister in Canada has to, out of necessity, be careful about whom she divulges her faith to. She was once at a get-together that, at one point, turned into a verbal Buddhism bash-a-thon. I'm glad I'm living in Korea and don't have to worry about witchhunts.
Orange:
Actually, even though the number of people in Canada and America going to church has become fewer and fewer over the last several decades, the number of people who believe in God has remained virtually the same. I think it's a bit of a different story in Europe, though, and of course, "Europe" is not some monolith; each country has its own story to tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| (My words) I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. |
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but I see this as jealousy on the part of theologists... Scientists study the natural world, and come to realize how structured, complex, and orderly the universe is. They don't try to find God in some disputable, 4,000-year-old book of legends; they find concrete evidence of Him, here and now, in the world all around us. |
I like the red and orange method of responding; a colorful system (sorry about that). I don't see this myself as a division between scientist and theologian, for there is no inherent contradiction; Chaucer was both an avid scientist who wrote on navigation and who wrote devotional literature. I maintain my ground that Einstein being a genius doesn't mean he knows every field of inquiry equally; to use an crude analogy, he probably wasn't much of a basketball player either, and no one would say I'm being snobbish in my discipline if I criticized his jump shot! While I don't agree that the Bible is merely a book of legends, okay; but to me the rest of the argument is strange. What a theologian does, almost by definition, is to explain how God relates to man in a structured, complex, and orderly universe here and now.
| Quote: |
| Actually, even though the number of people in Canada and America going to church has become fewer and fewer over the last several decades, the number of people who believe in God has remained virtually the same. |
| Quote: |
| It's growing among uneducated poor people. All of the more educated countries are throwing off the yokes of organized religions, finally. |
It is unfortunate that Buddhists now find themselves bullied; one of the most disturbing things I've seen in Korea is Buddhists chanting in a train station square and Christians attempting to disrupt the chanting with an amplified counter-service.
How do I explain the fact that yes, generally, where education levels have gone up piety has fallen? Well, I think that first if we argue that it's a direct relation-- that as education rises faith falls-- then we need to explain away third-world countries such as Korea, where education levels are rising and church memberships are rising also. This repeats itself in several countries with different faith systems. It might be better to say that in the time period of centuries these factors might not be related.
Secondly, and I'm on dangerous ground saying this, but education levels also tend to rise as income levels rise, and a wealthy, materialistic society is less likely to pray or see the need to if one can buy and consume everything they want. I say this carefully because there are exceptions, and because I don't want to suggest that poverty's better.
There is, of course, no reason anyway to suggest that religion and education are antithetical. A Christian education wasn't always a dirty word, and most ancient or medieval university systems in the world grew out of monastic or church organizations, whether in Europe, the middle east, or India (but maybe not Greece). Christ directed us to be trusting like lambs, but as sharp as adders too. To paraphrase, I think the early church was encouraged among the lower class and uneducated not because ignorance is better, but because the highly educated and rich are less likely to have open minds or hearts. Just my 2c.
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moldy Rutabaga wrote: |
| Quote: |
| (My words) I respect Einstein as a scientist, but it does not mean his views on religion have more weight. |
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but I see this as jealousy on the part of theologists... Scientists study the natural world, and come to realize how structured, complex, and orderly the universe is. They don't try to find God in some disputable, 4,000-year-old book of legends; they find concrete evidence of Him, here and now, in the world all around us. |
I like the red and orange method of responding; a colorful system (sorry about that). I don't see this myself as a division between scientist and theologian, for there is no inherent contradiction; Chaucer was both an avid scientist who wrote on navigation and who wrote devotional literature. I maintain my ground that Einstein being a genius doesn't mean he knows every field of inquiry equally; to use an crude analogy, he probably wasn't much of a basketball player either, and no one would say I'm being snobbish in my discipline if I criticized his jump shot! While I don't agree that the Bible is merely a book of legends, okay; but to me the rest of the argument is strange. What a theologian does, almost by definition, is to explain how God relates to man in a structured, complex, and orderly universe here and now.
| Quote: |
| Actually, even though the number of people in Canada and America going to church has become fewer and fewer over the last several decades, the number of people who believe in God has remained virtually the same. |
| Quote: |
| It's growing among uneducated poor people. All of the more educated countries are throwing off the yokes of organized religions, finally. |
It is unfortunate that Buddhists now find themselves bullied; one of the most disturbing things I've seen in Korea is Buddhists chanting in a train station square and Christians attempting to disrupt the chanting with an amplified counter-service.
How do I explain the fact that yes, generally, where education levels have gone up piety has fallen? Well, I think that first if we argue that it's a direct relation-- that as education rises faith falls-- then we need to explain away third-world countries such as Korea, where education levels are rising and church memberships are rising also. This repeats itself in several countries with different faith systems. It might be better to say that in the time period of centuries these factors might not be related.
Secondly, and I'm on dangerous ground saying this, but education levels also tend to rise as income levels rise, and a wealthy, materialistic society is less likely to pray or see the need to if one can buy and consume everything they want. I say this carefully because there are exceptions, and because I don't want to suggest that poverty's better.
There is, of course, no reason anyway to suggest that religion and education are antithetical. A Christian education wasn't always a dirty word, and most ancient or medieval university systems in the world grew out of monastic or church organizations, whether in Europe, the middle east, or India (but maybe not Greece). Christ directed us to be trusting like lambs, but as sharp as adders too. To paraphrase, I think the early church was encouraged among the lower class and uneducated not because ignorance is better, but because the highly educated and rich are less likely to have open minds or hearts. Just my 2c.
Ken:> |
I disagree with the Korea thing. They have just come out of poverty recently, and can't be used. The missionaries did go on a bender here before really becoming what it is today.
Still, I appreciate your views, and to be honest, you seem normal. Also adding that it is just your opinion instead of beating me with a bible  I disagree, but to be honest, we can all have very productive lives disagreeing about this as long as my views are not force on you and your views are not forced on me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I tell you, brothers and sisters, we will overcome |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moldy Rutabaga
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Location: Ansan, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hehe-- I was wondering when Richard Gere would make an appearance. But where's Lenny, Carl, and Lisa?
Ken:> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
My sister in Canada has to, out of necessity, be careful about whom she divulges her faith to. She was once at a get-together that, at one point, turned into a verbal Buddhism bash-a-thon. I'm glad I'm living in Korea and don't have to worry about witchhunts.
|
Is this true?
And I still want to hear more about the whole "god" thing, you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
