Oct 27, 2009 -- 6:55PM, Ken wrote:

Oct 27, 2009 -- 6:48PM, caduceus wrote:

sss.vn.ua/india/murtis/indexen.htm
They even have pictures of their gods here?

Those are Hindu gods.

The title says, large as life "Pictures of Hindu & Buddhist gods & goddesses, murtis.."

According to the tathagatagarbha sutras, the Buddha also taught the existence of a spiritual essence called the tathagagatagarbha or Buddha-nature, which is present in all beings and phenomena. Dr. B. Alan Wallace writes of this doctrine:...

Professor C.D. Sebastian writes in his study of tathagatagarbha doctrine that Mahayana Buddhism is not merely intellectual, but also encompasses the sphere of devotion. Buddha is taken as the Supreme Reality - a kind of God who assumed human form in order to benefit all humanity:

Dr. Guang Xing writes: "The Buddha worshipped by Mahayanist followers is an omnipotent divinity endowed with numerous supernatural attributes and qualities ...[He] is described almost as an omnipotent and almighty godhead."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism#Go...

This is just the continuation of my own threads that there are many gods who are in the service of a spirit of the universe who inflicts not rules per se.
Namaste
AL

Oct 26, 2009 -- 8:09PM, teilhard wrote:

Oct 25, 2009 -- 8:15PM, teilhard wrote:

Oct 24, 2009 -- 1:11PM, Faustus5 wrote:

 ...  Karen Armstrong's empty twaddle doesn't resemble the religion believed in by the vast majority of the planets theists.

 

LOL ...

 

So ... the Suggested Implication

is that speaking and writing ( supposed ) " ... empty twaddle ... "

puts her in The Company of "Atheists" ... ???

 

Yes ... ???  LOL ...

Hello ... ???

Oct 31, 2009 -- 9:52AM, Faustus5 wrote:

Oct 28, 2009 -- 3:59PM, teilhard wrote:

LOL ...

 

So ... the Suggested Implication

is that speaking and writing ( supposed ) " ... empty twaddle ... "

puts her in The Company of "Atheists" ... ???

 

Yes ... ???  LOL ...

 

No, the emptiness of her twaddle is that, like you, she says absolutely nothing of substance but tries to dress it up with sophistry in order to offer the illusion of depth.  But unlike you, she can write.

Care to respond to the theologian I cited who also observed that her "god" bears little resemblance to the being he and his follow theists believe in?

F1,

always falling back down to insult - as a substitute for argument - goes after a well respected author

Armstrong, who taught for a time at London's Leo Baeck rabbinic college, says she has been particularly inspired by the Jewish tradition's emphasis on practice as well as faith: "I say that religion isn't about believing things. It's about what you do. It's ethical alchemy. It's about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness."

First - she promotes the key issue that religion is living life - not talking about it.

Second - The sum total of theists in the world is widely diverse and does not have a clear majority opinion - on the nature of god or gods.  Where religion counts is opinions and level of mandate for the practice of compassion and developing moral character.

The image and "bearing" of any visual image or icon of a god is overshadowed by the moral teaching.  Karen Armstrong is about reporting the commonality of religions.  Aiming at the graphical - when its the practicle output in the objective environemnt that counts - is the standard strawman offering.

f5 cannot seem to help the mudslinging and bad-mouthing of others, when they display ideas different from his own