Was Buddism convoluted with Hindu beliefs?

[rockyysdt]

Buddha himself despised and ridiculed organized religions (in the way an enlightened person can only do). He invited anyone from any religion to come and sit with him and practice, because his path had nothing to do with religion, it is a path of self awareness that only the individual himself can walk, with guidance from a Teacher, but ultimately it is only the individual that can discover the truth.

Organised Buddhism itself is a perversion of his teachings and the word Buddhism was never mentioned by Buddha himself.

Reincarnation and the concept of rebirth is a Hindu idea.

What Buddha realized is that there is no soul or spirit, there are only actions. It is these actions that is carried forward to another body by the tremendous trauma of dying for a person with deep attachments to life. In fact it is one single defining action carved in stone that carries forward to another life.

This is what he managed to do, meditate to a point that he eliminated all attachments and became free of this cycle, it took him 9 years of meditation 24 hours a day, and even before he sat down for these 9 years he had tried many many other ways to become enlightened, so even before he started he had come quiet a long way on that road.

So for most of us normal people we cannot hope to attain anything near that, only someway towards that final goal.

You will not get anywhere on the way by reading books, only the practice of meditation will take you further on the path, in the way Buddha himself taught.

So relating to rebirth, there is no such thing as an "I" or "Self", "Spirit", Soul". only very deep actions/emotions that carry forward free of any "I" or "Self". When a baby is born it is born without "I" but because of the very strong action/emotion carried forward by another, it will develop an "I" rather quickly.

Don't ask me how this takes place physically, I am just saying what Buddha said. After all he discovered the subatomic particles (which he called "Callapas") just by observing his body and mind.

Buddha himself remembered thousand upon thousand of previous lives, but how that exactly worked I do not know either.

Are you sure?

These many lives, couldn't they be moment to moment?

The next lives carried over due to deep actions/emotions, couldn't these also be moment to moment.

This is the crossroad.

The nexus between religion vs simply a teaching freeing one from Dukkha in the here and now.

of course I am not sure, If I was sure I would be enlightened already.

What I meant was, " are you sure this is what the Buddha was teaching"?

If you re read your post you will see that you were stating what the Buddha taught, rather than putting forward what he has been attributed to have said.

My contention is that his early works don't bare out re birth into future lives and that this is a misinterpretation and mixing with Hindu/ Brahman and taking place up to 500 years after the Buddha passed or beyond.

Spawned branches such as Theravada, and Mahayana, and others, all claiming to be the correct path.

[Docno]

As for rebirth, Tibetan Buddhists certainly believe it is an important tenant of the faith. It is central to the entire notion of Karma.

Precisely.

When I speak of convolution I was referring to critical tenets such as re incarnation, re birth, actual relms of existence, actions (kharma) affecting re birth (either luck, status or caste).

These are crucial ingredients which make up religion and desirability (ego).

Other posters also highlighted many other Hindu vs Buddhism specifics but the above core beliefs are my focus in the OP.

Does Tibetan Buddhist belief of these give credence?

The speaker was emphatic

He indicated that multiple lives, real realms of existence, re birth/reincarnation were not part of the original Buddhist teaching.

Original teaching was of the present moment in this life.

Those who carried on and eventually wrote the Canon were not in a vacuum. They came with colored eyes (conditioned by Hinduism, Brahmanism, and other beliefs).

In fact Buddhagosa (translated the Pali Canon) had a Christian background.

This is my point of convolution.

The interesting point is that all the 31 realms of existence can live in the mind, the full range of suffering and hell is available on this planet for all, re birth, occurring in minute fractions of existence (dependant origination : contact, consciousness, thought, feeling, craving, becoming, attachment, continuously), the next influenced by the one preceded (kharma).

The desire to exist beyond death, whether as a soul or in a common void of cosmic consciousness, fuels ego, and spawns religions.

Was the Buddha's original teachings highjacked (convoluted )?

"In fact Buddhagosa (translated the Pali Canon) had a Christian background."

Huh??? How did a 5th century CE Indian scholar come from a Christian background? Where do you get that idea from?

[Docno]

Christ was a practicing Jew and Buddha was born a Nepalese Hindu prince with a very over-protective father. Buddhism here is mixed in with the pre-Buddhist animist rituals (am I allowed to say mumbo-jumbo?) in the same way the Christmas & Easter as festivals predate and were adopted by Christianity. I have a feeling that the great original Gautama Buddha would have had no use for the wooden penis fertility charms on sale in most temples or the blood dripping Hindu Goddess Kali idols/dolls sold in some temples here. Look in most shops & businesses here & you will see the shop shrine with Chinese Buddhist icons etc. Religion everywhere is mixed up with other stuff because it is a human construct, not god-given, as they all claim to be. And (present company excepted of course for obvious reasons), they cannot all be right. I am an Orthodox Hedonist myself, but an amused life-long student of comparative religions.

In reality if you study history Christianity has killed more people than anything else. Over 200 million plus by my reckoning. It makes the sectarian wars going on in the middle east small in comparison. I guess every dog must have his day.

Reality? Study? Sounds like you are just repeating the common false belief that Christianity was the biggest killer of the 20th Century and havent actually taken the time to study anything. It was not christianity but atheism which killed about 260 million in the last century making it the biggest killer of all religions.

How do you come to that figure?? I've not seen a figure that high for all war deaths in the 20th century, much less deaths motivated by a desire to spread atheism (which is what you actually mean when you credit an ideology with killing people).

[SunsetT]

Buddha taught that the Hindu gods were not worthy of veneration due to them being stuck in the same cyclic existence as mortals but, he did not deny their existence. He taught that Brahmins had altered the Veda to suit themselves but he did not deny that the Veda was sacred. It is probably this level of acceptance that led to Buddhists continuing some of their animistic beliefs and still worshipping the old Gods while also adopting Buddhist philosophy. Buddha was a Hindu and he sought to convert other Hindus, it is only natural that some beliefs were carried over and became entwined in his new belief system. The word Buddha actually comes from Hinduism where it had been used as an alternative name for Lord Shiva. The Dharma is lifted straight from Hinduism, as is the concept of karma and the practices of meditation and yoga.

A few discrepancies S.

The Buddha never referred to himself as Buddha nor Lord.

This came after his death.

He was referred as "Tathagata", one who has thus gone, or one who has thus come.

He never confirmed nor denied the existence of Brahman himself, but said even he was un awakened living in Samsara, a lampooning or huge demotion of the ultimate head God.

Your statement, Buddhism lifted from Hinduism, is this how you find it practiced or are you saying this is the Buddhas early teachings?

The International Retreat speaker, sourcing his knowledge directly under the tutelage of Ajahn Buddhadasa makes it clear Awakening is to be had here and now, not in supposed future lives.

We are talking about two subjects.

n

If the speaker is teaching 'Awakening here and now' he is not teaching the original Theravada Buddhism which Thai Buddhism is supposed to be. He is teaching Chan/Zen Buddhism which is what Buddhism eventually evolved into in China and Japan.

[lvr181]

Christ was a practicing Jew and Buddha was born a Nepalese Hindu prince with a very over-protective father. Buddhism here is mixed in with the pre-Buddhist animist rituals (am I allowed to say mumbo-jumbo?) in the same way the Christmas & Easter as festivals predate and were adopted by Christianity. I have a feeling that the great original Gautama Buddha would have had no use for the wooden penis fertility charms on sale in most temples or the blood dripping Hindu Goddess Kali idols/dolls sold in some temples here. Look in most shops & businesses here & you will see the shop shrine with Chinese Buddhist icons etc. Religion everywhere is mixed up with other stuff because it is a human construct, not god-given, as they all claim to be. And (present company excepted of course for obvious reasons), they cannot all be right. I am an Orthodox Hedonist myself, but an amused life-long student of comparative religions.

In reality if you study history Christianity has killed more people than anything else. Over 200 million plus by my reckoning. It makes the sectarian wars going on in the middle east small in comparison. I guess every dog must have his day.

And your source about the numbers is??

[rockyysdt]

If the speaker is teaching 'Awakening here and now' he is not teaching the original Theravada Buddhism which Thai Buddhism is supposed to be. He is teaching Chan/Zen Buddhism which is what Buddhism eventually evolved into in China and Japan.

Was the Buddha a Theravadin?

PS: Thank you for the correction. He wasn't a Christian.

[The Deerhunter]

Christ was a practicing Jew and Buddha was born a Nepalese Hindu prince with a very over-protective father. Buddhism here is mixed in with the pre-Buddhist animist rituals (am I allowed to say mumbo-jumbo?) in the same way the Christmas & Easter as festivals predate and were adopted by Christianity. I have a feeling that the great original Gautama Buddha would have had no use for the wooden penis fertility charms on sale in most temples or the blood dripping Hindu Goddess Kali idols/dolls sold in some temples here. Look in most shops & businesses here & you will see the shop shrine with Chinese Buddhist icons etc. Religion everywhere is mixed up with other stuff because it is a human construct, not god-given, as they all claim to be. And (present company excepted of course for obvious reasons), they cannot all be right. I am an Orthodox Hedonist myself, but an amused life-long student of comparative religions.

In reality if you study history Christianity has killed more people than anything else. Over 200 million plus by my reckoning. It makes the sectarian wars going on in the middle east small in comparison. I guess every dog must have his day.

One of my favourite quotes is from H.L.Mencken. "Religion is the greatest fomenter of hatred and bloodshed the world has ever seen." My latest favourite teeshirt quote is RELIGION: Bringing hope and comfort to millions in a world torn apart by RELIGION.

Buddhism can neatly be excepted from the above two quotes because many of it's adherents believe it is not a religion but a way of life. Of course, many religions claim this to make themselves unique, just like all the others. Merriam-Webster offers three definitions to the word religion This is No 3. : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group. Devout Buddhists apparently concentrate on removing "suffering" or "any form of disappointment" from their lives , and in doing so, attempt to depress their Id and/or Ego. Therefore a good Buddhist should theoretically concentrate on his own inner self & only offer help & guidance where specifically asked for. At this point of course, my sense of irony wants to know "if people who take any opportunity to expound and argue at length, their religious beliefs are not perhaps allowing their (unhappily suppressed) Id or Ego to show just a teensy weensy bit." PS I do not deny I have an Id and possibly on occasions, even an Ego.

[rockyysdt]

If the speaker is teaching 'Awakening here and now' he is not teaching the original Theravada Buddhism which Thai Buddhism is supposed to be.

If Theravada Buddhism teaches future real lives, generated by unspent kharma,

& multiple realms of existence, then my contention is that the teachings have been convoluted with Hinduism/Brahmanism.

The Buddha taught Anatta.

Neither Self, nor No Self, but Non Self.

Bikkhu Buddhadasa, venerated and respected by Thai Buddhists said of Anatta:

Quote: Non Self: The meditator is encouraged to reflect upon the Buddhas centrally significant theme of selflessness or non self (anatta). Despite the necessity of using personal pronouns and other vocabulary denoting personal and/or intentional activity, the fact is that the "doer", the "meditator", the "knower" is the mind and not a self, a me, or a person.

Non Self is the mind.

The mind cannot exist without body.

There is nothing which remains after death to be re born into another life.

Such fancy is ego, Hindusism/Brahmanism.

There is however millions of instances of re birth in the moment (sense contact, momentary arising of consciousness, thought, feeling, becoming, craving, attachment).

[The Deerhunter]

Buddha himself despised and ridiculed organized religions (in the way an enlightened person can only do). He invited anyone from any religion to come and sit with him and practice, because his path had nothing to do with religion, it is a path of self awareness that only the individual himself can walk, with guidance from a Teacher, but ultimately it is only the individual that can discover the truth.

Organised Buddhism itself is a perversion of his teachings and the word Buddhism was never mentioned by Buddha himself.

Reincarnation and the concept of rebirth is a Hindu idea.

What Buddha realized is that there is no soul or spirit, there are only actions. It is these actions that is carried forward to another body by the tremendous trauma of dying for a person with deep attachments to life. In fact it is one single defining action carved in stone that carries forward to another life.

This is what he managed to do, meditate to a point that he eliminated all attachments and became free of this cycle, it took him 9 years of meditation 24 hours a day, and even before he sat down for these 9 years he had tried many many other ways to become enlightened, so even before he started he had come quiet a long way on that road.

So for most of us normal people we cannot hope to attain anything near that, only someway towards that final goal.

You will not get anywhere on the way by reading books, only the practice of meditation will take you further on the path, in the way Buddha himself taught.

So relating to rebirth, there is no such thing as an "I" or "Self", "Spirit", Soul". only very deep actions/emotions that carry forward free of any "I" or "Self". When a baby is born it is born without "I" but because of the very strong action/emotion carried forward by another, it will develop an "I" rather quickly.

Don't ask me how this takes place physically, I am just saying what Buddha said. After all he discovered the subatomic particles (which he called "Callapas") just by observing his body and mind.

Buddha himself remembered thousand upon thousand of previous lives, but how that exactly worked I do not know either.

Are you sure?

These many lives, couldn't they be moment to moment?

The next lives carried over due to deep actions/emotions, couldn't these also be moment to moment.

This is the crossroad.

The nexus between religion vs simply a teaching freeing one from Dukkha in the here and now.

of course I am not sure, If I was sure I would be enlightened already.

What I meant was, " are you sure this is what the Buddha was teaching"?

If you re read your post you will see that you were stating what the Buddha taught, rather than putting forward what he has been attributed to have said.

My contention is that his early works don't bare out re birth into future lives and that this is a misinterpretation and mixing with Hindu/ Brahman and taking place up to 500 years after the Buddha passed or beyond.

Spawned branches such as Theravada, and Mahayana, and others, all claiming to be the correct path.

How does anyone know for sure what Buddha or Christ actually taught? All great teaches suffer from revisionist editing where later scribes add their own bits & claim "the master said....." The New Testament of the Christian bible was written by people starting 30 years after his death. How many of his exact quotes are likely to have been correctly remembered, or alternatively been modified by error or deceit. Genesis in the old testament has two or more versions of the same event on a number of occasions. The same must be true of all great teachers, particularly when the editing is done to enhance the attraction of an organized religion with aspects that the teacher perhaps had no intention of founding. All religions have inclusions of other beliefs, icons, rituals or legends incorrectly attributed to the base faith or word of the master. Christians should ask them selves what Jesus would have thought of appropriating pagan festivals to commemorate his birth and death. To return to topic, followers of other belief systems should ask themselves "how much of what we do here is what the master (add your favorite name) really taught, and how much is just to build the business up and keep everyone in a job?"

[rockyysdt]

Practice without expectation.

Awareness of what is through personal experience.

[rockyysdt]

How does anyone know for sure what Buddha or Christ actually taught?

Precisely, and this is why we debate.

Imagine devoting your whole life towards achieving immortality free from dukkha (suffering), and the cycle of re birth, only to find that this was Hindu mythology!

In this world we continue to find Buddhists who have extremely little awareness/knowledge of the teachings, most praying to the Buddha as a deity (Hinduism).

One must be extremely wary of Ego.

[Shawn0001]

Christ was a practicing Jew and Buddha was born a Nepalese Hindu prince with a very over-protective father. Buddhism here is mixed in with the pre-Buddhist animist rituals (am I allowed to say mumbo-jumbo?) in the same way the Christmas & Easter as festivals predate and were adopted by Christianity. I have a feeling that the great original Gautama Buddha would have had no use for the wooden penis fertility charms on sale in most temples or the blood dripping Hindu Goddess Kali idols/dolls sold in some temples here. Look in most shops & businesses here & you will see the shop shrine with Chinese Buddhist icons etc. Religion everywhere is mixed up with other stuff because it is a human construct, not god-given, as they all claim to be. And (present company excepted of course for obvious reasons), they cannot all be right. I am an Orthodox Hedonist myself, but an amused life-long student of comparative religions.

In reality if you study history Christianity has killed more people than anything else. Over 200 million plus by my reckoning. It makes the sectarian wars going on in the middle east small in comparison. I guess every dog must have his day.

Reality? Study? Sounds like you are just repeating the common false belief that Christianity was the biggest killer of the 20th Century and havent actually taken the time to study anything. It was not christianity but atheism which killed about 260 million in the last century making it the biggest killer of all religions.

How do you come to that figure?? I've not seen a figure that high for all war deaths in the 20th century, much less deaths motivated by a desire to spread atheism (which is what you actually mean when you credit an ideology with killing people).

They do not have to be deaths from wars, nor just by the spead of an ideology. They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology. Add up deaths incured by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and you will get somewhere around that number.

[Shawn0001]

Buddha taught that the Hindu gods were not worthy of veneration due to them being stuck in the same cyclic existence as mortals but, he did not deny their existence. He taught that Brahmins had altered the Veda to suit themselves but he did not deny that the Veda was sacred. It is probably this level of acceptance that led to Buddhists continuing some of their animistic beliefs and still worshipping the old Gods while also adopting Buddhist philosophy. Buddha was a Hindu and he sought to convert other Hindus, it is only natural that some beliefs were carried over and became entwined in his new belief system. The word Buddha actually comes from Hinduism where it had been used as an alternative name for Lord Shiva. The Dharma is lifted straight from Hinduism, as is the concept of karma and the practices of meditation and yoga.

A few discrepancies S.

The Buddha never referred to himself as Buddha nor Lord.

This came after his death.

He was referred as "Tathagata", one who has thus gone, or one who has thus come.

He never confirmed nor denied the existence of Brahman himself, but said even he was un awakened living in Samsara, a lampooning or huge demotion of the ultimate head God.

Your statement, Buddhism lifted from Hinduism, is this how you find it practiced or are you saying this is the Buddhas early teachings?

The International Retreat speaker, sourcing his knowledge directly under the tutelage of Ajahn Buddhadasa makes it clear Awakening is to be had here and now, not in supposed future lives.

We are talking about two subjects.

What the Buddha actually taught vs Teachings fainted by Hinduism.

Yes, Buddha was given this title after his death, but this now remains a part of Buddhism and is just an example of how Buddhism has been convoluted with Hinduism. So, what is the question, is Buddhism convoluted with Hinduisim or was Buddha convoluted by Hinduism?

Anyway, I think the answer is yes for both. Clearly Buddhism allowed many to hold onto some of their Hindu belief system when converting, and also Buddha kept some of his own old beliefs and brought these into his new teachings.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, Buddha was given this title after his death, but this now remains a part of Buddhism and is just an example of how Buddhism has been convoluted with Hinduism. So, what is the question, is Buddhism convoluted with Hinduisim or was Buddha convoluted by Hinduism?

Anyway, I think the answer is yes for both. Clearly Buddhism allowed many to hold onto some of their Hindu belief system when converting, and also Buddha kept some of his own old beliefs and brought these into his new teachings.

Initially yes, but once awakened (if this is possible or happened), wouldn't he have then dumped the baggage?

His teaching took place post awakening.

He left his Kingdom in search of truth.

He turned his back on the wealthy trappings of royalty.

I think the issue is what he has been attributed to have taught.

[Shawn0001]

Yes, Buddha was given this title after his death, but this now remains a part of Buddhism and is just an example of how Buddhism has been convoluted with Hinduism. So, what is the question, is Buddhism convoluted with Hinduisim or was Buddha convoluted by Hinduism?

Anyway, I think the answer is yes for both. Clearly Buddhism allowed many to hold onto some of their Hindu belief system when converting, and also Buddha kept some of his own old beliefs and brought these into his new teachings.

Initially yes, but once awakened (if this is possible or happened), wouldn't he have then dumped the baggage?

His teaching took place post awakening.

He left his Kingdom in search of truth.

He turned his back on the wealthy trappings of royalty.

I think the issue is what he has been attributed to have taught.

Do you mean what he has been attributed to have taught and whether this was convoluted with Hinduism or not? If so, then meditation is an example of something which Buddha taught, is convoluted with Hinduism, and was not dropped as "baggage" but instead embraced and improved on.

[rockyysdt]

Do you mean what he has been attributed to have taught and whether this was convoluted with Hinduism or not? If so, then meditation is an example of something which Buddha taught, is convoluted with Hinduism, and was not dropped as "baggage" but instead embraced and improved on.

Very interesting points Shawn.

My thoughts are that although Meditation was part of Hindu teachings I think it is one of those universal things which stand on their own.

It's like water.

It is used as part of the coolant in a car, but we cant say it is exclusively automotive.

Meditation, or concentrated awareness is simply that.

I don't think it is exclusively Hindu.

When I speak of being part of a religion is items of belief, not methods to get somewhere such as exercise, awareness training, concentration, etc.

Buddha definitely studied and tried other religions and practices.

What I think he eventually took out of religions were practices which yield fruit, rather than beleifs which remain beliefs until it is too late.

The convoluting I speak of is the acts of others to assume/presume Hindu/Brahman beliefs were the benchmark and that the Buddhas teaching nestled into these. When I say beliefs I mean unprovable positions.

Meditation, although an important practice in a number of religions is a universal practice which heightens ones awareness. It is universal amongst humans.

[Brickbat]

Buddha's message was to be Awake ( Buddha) to the Present. Or we are trying to find an outcome from the past or the imagined future. Doing this just defines and what is defined, confines. The Present is eternal and can never be captured by thought. Off course this cunning animal ( mind) won't give up and that's why very few attain enlightenment.

[Docno]

In reality if you study history Christianity has killed more people than anything else. Over 200 million plus by my reckoning. It makes the sectarian wars going on in the middle east small in comparison. I guess every dog must have his day.

Reality? Study? Sounds like you are just repeating the common false belief that Christianity was the biggest killer of the 20th Century and havent actually taken the time to study anything. It was not christianity but atheism which killed about 260 million in the last century making it the biggest killer of all religions.

How do you come to that figure?? I've not seen a figure that high for all war deaths in the 20th century, much less deaths motivated by a desire to spread atheism (which is what you actually mean when you credit an ideology with killing people).

They do not have to be deaths from wars, nor just by the spead of an ideology. They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology. Add up deaths incured by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and you will get somewhere around that number.

Problem 1: no, they don't add up to that number - or can you show me otherwise

Problem 2: none of those events you mentioned were about 'spreading atheism'. They were about spreading different strains of communism, of which atheism was only an incidental part. Marx saw religion as an 'opiate' that prevented workers from perceiving the true state of their oppression. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot saw priests/monks as being an source of anti-revolutionary sentiment and agitation. But, for the most part, they didn't invade other territories and kill people for the primary purpose of making atheism dominant (though there are nuances around the Chinese invasion of Tibet). You also need to educate yourself more on Hitler's beliefs and the role of Christianity in Nazi Germany.

Let me simplify it like this: The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were led and promoted by predominantly Christian nations, but that does not mean that they were motivated by religious ideology.

[Shawn0001]

Reality? Study? Sounds like you are just repeating the common false belief that Christianity was the biggest killer of the 20th Century and havent actually taken the time to study anything. It was not christianity but atheism which killed about 260 million in the last century making it the biggest killer of all religions.

How do you come to that figure?? I've not seen a figure that high for all war deaths in the 20th century, much less deaths motivated by a desire to spread atheism (which is what you actually mean when you credit an ideology with killing people).

They do not have to be deaths from wars, nor just by the spead of an ideology. They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology. Add up deaths incured by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and you will get somewhere around that number.

Problem 1: no, they don't add up to that number - or can you show me otherwise

Problem 2: none of those events you mentioned were about 'spreading atheism'. They were about spreading different strains of communism, of which atheism was only an incidental part. Marx saw religion as an 'opiate' that prevented workers from perceiving the true state of their oppression. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot saw priests/monks as being an source of anti-revolutionary sentiment and agitation. But, for the most part, they didn't invade other territories and kill people for the primary purpose of making atheism dominant (though there are nuances around the Chinese invasion of Tibet). You also need to educate yourself more on Hitler's beliefs and the role of Christianity in Nazi Germany.

Let me simplify it like this: The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were led and promoted by predominantly Christian nations, but that does not mean that they were motivated by religious ideology.

Why are you quoting "spreading atheism", that was your definition alone, you are quoting yourself, and using a notion I already dismissed for the nonsese that it is. There are other reasons to blame a religion for deaths than it's "spread", obviously.

The numbers can be calculated in more than one way, direct deaths or deaths from wars, famines, etc as a result of, the number I quoted is the highest estimate. For example, Americas killings in Japan can also be attributed to Hitler as it was he who started the war, so Hitler is responsible for some 66 million deaths.

It does not have to be about speading the belief, there has to have been some motivation from that belief. You could argue that Christianity has not been a big killer as the primary motivating factor for killing was usually actually money but as the religious factor also played a role then Christianity is also to blame.

Hitler was an athiest, he practiced Social Dawinism, that's really not a Christian activity and I can't think of a clearer example of an atheist in practice. He may of used Christianity in order to hold his support but he certainly didn't believe in it himself as his actions clearly demonstrate.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade", and the first place they conquered was Babylon, if you think those wars were not in part motivated by Christianity then you are deluded.

[rockyysdt]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade", and the first place they conquered was Babylon, if you think those wars were not in part motivated by Christianity then you are deluded.

Hi Shaun.

Not wishing to digress nor be argumentative but weren't the labels (crusade) purely an exercise to gain public support?

Weren't the real motives to do with big military arms spending?

U.S. military weapons manufacturers tap into, and benefit from growing the U.S. military budget which is already of gargantuan proportions.

[Shawn0001]

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade", and the first place they conquered was Babylon, if you think those wars were not in part motivated by Christianity then you are deluded.

Hi Shaun.

Not wishing to digress nor be argumentative but weren't the labels (crusade) purely an exercise to gain public support?

Weren't the real motives to do with big military arms spending?

U.S. military weapons manufacturers tap into, and benefit from growing the U.S. military budget which is already of gargantuan proportions.

Isn't that all that religion has ever really been about, to gain support for a different agenda? Of course one of the primary motives was money through arms. Another was resecuring the morphine trade after loosing a big deal between India and Brazil. The main motivator was money for sure but it was Christianity that got the support of the people, people who thought we really were going to help people, so Christianity has to share the blame as without it would they have gained the support they needed?

[gandalf12]

wrong Buddhism don't come from hindusim...

because hindu is losing fellowships... as fellowship number is power..!

..so they claimed Buddha is a recarnation of Vishu..etc..

well for sure Buddhism do not believe in class system... if you are born as a Brahmin or undertaker.. u are still able to accept the practise to get enlighten.. with hard-working practise...

for hindu.. if u are born Brahmin.. u are upper class... yes for this lifetime only....

if you happen to read the book Jesus in india...is shown where is Jesus during his teens ?...well just take it a pitch of salt..

as for the 3 wise man who found jesus.. basically we know tibetian monk travel far to search for the next saint.. as he will benefits the human race regardless of which religion he will be..so likely the 3 wise monk is the tibetian monk..

Buddhism do not believe in animals sacrifices... every life is precious..

you can see the compassionation in everyone heart regardless he is a good or bad person... it is just hidden deep or shallow in the heart....

we don't denial the existing of Gods and spirits... because Budhhism need one to go into real understanding and own practise to understand it.. no amount of books knowledge can assist.. only thru own hard effort practise.. but it the Law of Nature... just that we don't accept it as not in favour to us..

we don't want get old..we don't want to lose control of the body and mind...we don't want to lose those we love or like.. and old habits of worlding teaching...40yrs in school and working environment.. changed us... competition , wealth status ,more ..more...!! in the corporate world...only build more greed in us...

non self , impermanence ....

Hinduism split into two (2) forms of what is now Buddhism and of course Hinduism. Get your facts straight

[Docno]

How do you come to that figure?? I've not seen a figure that high for all war deaths in the 20th century, much less deaths motivated by a desire to spread atheism (which is what you actually mean when you credit an ideology with killing people).

They do not have to be deaths from wars, nor just by the spead of an ideology. They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology. Add up deaths incured by Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, and you will get somewhere around that number.

Problem 1: no, they don't add up to that number - or can you show me otherwise

Problem 2: none of those events you mentioned were about 'spreading atheism'. They were about spreading different strains of communism, of which atheism was only an incidental part. Marx saw religion as an 'opiate' that prevented workers from perceiving the true state of their oppression. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot saw priests/monks as being an source of anti-revolutionary sentiment and agitation. But, for the most part, they didn't invade other territories and kill people for the primary purpose of making atheism dominant (though there are nuances around the Chinese invasion of Tibet). You also need to educate yourself more on Hitler's beliefs and the role of Christianity in Nazi Germany.

Let me simplify it like this: The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were led and promoted by predominantly Christian nations, but that does not mean that they were motivated by religious ideology.

Why are you quoting "spreading atheism", that was your definition alone, you are quoting yourself, and using a notion I already dismissed for the nonsese that it is. There are other reasons to blame a religion for deaths than it's "spread", obviously.

The numbers can be calculated in more than one way, direct deaths or deaths from wars, famines, etc as a result of, the number I quoted is the highest estimate. For example, Americas killings in Japan can also be attributed to Hitler as it was he who started the war, so Hitler is responsible for some 66 million deaths.

It does not have to be about speading the belief, there has to have been some motivation from that belief. You could argue that Christianity has not been a big killer as the primary motivating factor for killing was usually actually money but as the religious factor also played a role then Christianity is also to blame.

Hitler was an athiest, he practiced Social Dawinism, that's really not a Christian activity and I can't think of a clearer example of an atheist in practice. He may of used Christianity in order to hold his support but he certainly didn't believe in it himself as his actions clearly demonstrate.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade", and the first place they conquered was Babylon, if you think those wars were not in part motivated by Christianity then you are deluded.

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

[Docno]

wrong Buddhism don't come from hindusim...

because hindu is losing fellowships... as fellowship number is power..!

..so they claimed Buddha is a recarnation of Vishu..etc..

well for sure Buddhism do not believe in class system... if you are born as a Brahmin or undertaker.. u are still able to accept the practise to get enlighten.. with hard-working practise...

for hindu.. if u are born Brahmin.. u are upper class... yes for this lifetime only....

if you happen to read the book Jesus in india...is shown where is Jesus during his teens ?...well just take it a pitch of salt..

as for the 3 wise man who found jesus.. basically we know tibetian monk travel far to search for the next saint.. as he will benefits the human race regardless of which religion he will be..so likely the 3 wise monk is the tibetian monk..

Buddhism do not believe in animals sacrifices... every life is precious..

you can see the compassionation in everyone heart regardless he is a good or bad person... it is just hidden deep or shallow in the heart....

we don't denial the existing of Gods and spirits... because Budhhism need one to go into real understanding and own practise to understand it.. no amount of books knowledge can assist.. only thru own hard effort practise.. but it the Law of Nature... just that we don't accept it as not in favour to us..

we don't want get old..we don't want to lose control of the body and mind...we don't want to lose those we love or like.. and old habits of worlding teaching...40yrs in school and working environment.. changed us... competition , wealth status ,more ..more...!! in the corporate world...only build more greed in us...

non self , impermanence ....

Hinduism split into two (2) forms of what is now Buddhism and of course Hinduism. Get your facts straight

Not completely sure what your point is. Are you arguing that Buddhism is a form of Hinduism? That's like arguing that Christianity is a form of Judaism - the argument could be made both ways on that, I guess. But Saggicool is correct in suggesting that many modern Hindus Buddhism as simply another form of Hinduism. One of my brahmin friends in Singapore says this was quite intentionally done as a way of trying to reabsorb/co-opt Buddhism back into Hinduism.

[AYJAYDEE]

As far as I know, Buddhadassa did not specifically deny rebirth but rather stressed that it was not worthwhile being concerned about it while there was so much important work to be done in this life overcoming greed, aversion and delusion.

[Shawn0001]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

[Docno]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

I will ignore your ad hominem statements (though, if anything, you are the one having problems reading). I was clear in the distinction I asserted between acts committed to promote atheism versus acts committed to promote a wider ideology of which atheism may have been a non-central element. In addition, killings of priests/monks/etc may not always be committed for religious reasons because (as I explained previously) religious institutions often represent a competing power base to those holding political power. A good demonstration of this would be the assassination of Archbishop Romero in El Salvador in 1980: he was murdered by the military not because of his religious beliefs but because of his influence with the people. The mass killings of monks in Myanmar a few years ago was also not intended to 'convert' the population to atheism.

So this is where your argument breaks down. Nation X may be communist, may feel threatened by non-communist Nation Y, may pre-emptively invade Nation Y and install a communist government, and may kill one million people in the process. Perhaps some number of these will even be intentional killings of priests, etc. But it would be erroneous to state that all those one-million deaths were a result of a desire to impose atheism; rather, the desire to spread communism and/or nationalism would be the key motivators. The key intent of the invasion was not to spread atheism, so atheism cannot be 'blamed' for the one million deaths.

Next: The estimates you link to are certainly higher than those cited by (for example) Steven Pinker, who has done an exhaustive review of violence through-out history. But let's not count angels on the heads of needles.

You've moved the discussion past Hitler into social Darwinism and are now asserting that social Darwinism is incompatible with Christian ideology. Well, that may be true at a conceptual level, but I suggest you do some reading about the western eugenics movement that greatly influenced Hitler's thinking -- you will see that many Protestant leaders supported the eugenics movement (though Catholic leaders to a lesser extent). Moreover, many religious people supported slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, a practice would seem incompatible with the teachings of Jesus (the point being that people can quite effectively compartmentalise their belief systems).

[Docno]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

"The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo."

I decided to address your last point separately because it was the weakest. Do you really believe that the US/allies invaded Iraq and Afghanistan out of an altruistic desire 'to help others in need'?? OK, granted, the US started talking about regime change in Iraq after all those WMDs evaporated, but that was certainly not the flag they were waving at the start. And you really believe that 'helping others in need' is a special core value of Christianity? It would be a value espoused by most religions as well as people not holding to any religion to the point that evolutionary psychologists consider it part of our nature.

["Dumbo"? What year of high school are you in?]

[AYJAYDEE]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

christians used other races as slaves for centuries pal. spare us your so called lessons

[Shawn0001]

"They have to be deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology"

OK, please explain your meaning here. What does it mean to say 'deaths incured either in the imposition or upholding of an ideology'? I will go back to your language and assert the following: None of the events to which you referred were about imposing or upholding atheism.

"the number I quoted is the highest estimate."

Fine - and what is the source of this estimate?

"Hitler was an athiest"

Then please explain this statement from Mein Kampf: "The völkisch-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." These certainly don't sound like the words of an atheist.

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated by Christian values. Bush called it "this crusade"..."

What values would those be? And there's nothing to indicate that Bush meant 'crusade' in the sense of 'fighting for the Cross'. Surely you are aware that 'crusade' has, over the past couple of centuries, become secularised in meaning? Or do you think that Batman, the caped crusader, is doing the work of the lord?

As boring as you have become I will take just a little more time to help you.

When priests were pulled from their churches accross the Soviet Block and shot to death in front of their congregation, those deaths were clearly about the imposition of athiesm. That is as simple an example as I can give you. The fact is that indirectly all of those deaths were caused by the same, it may not be as simple for you to understand but if you go and read about communism and the link to atheism you might understand, but I really dont have time to teach you everything.

The estimate can be found here. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

As for Hitler, I thought I already had explained my statement, just checked and I did, do try to read first in the future.

Hitler used Christianity in order to hold on to his support. Does Social Darwinism sound like a Christian to you? He was killing people to make what he thought would be a better race and you recon he was a Christian!?!?!??!?! That is very funny.

The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo.

Bush said, "God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq", shortly before conquering BABYLON, but you're probably right, I am sure he thought he was batman, LOL

"The value that was used to help garner support for the wars in Iraq and Afghan was the basic Christian value of helping others in need, dumbo."

I decided to address your last point separately because it was the weakest. Do you really believe that the US/allies invaded Iraq and Afghanistan out of an altruistic desire 'to help others in need'?? OK, granted, the US started talking about regime change in Iraq after all those WMDs evaporated, but that was certainly not the flag they were waving at the start. And you really believe that 'helping others in need' is a special core value of Christianity? It would be a value espoused by most religions as well as people not holding to any religion to the point that evolutionary psychologists consider it part of our nature.

["Dumbo"? What year of high school are you in?]

It's really not me having trouble with reading your posts, however if you re-read my last one you might note that I actually gave the use of Christian morals as a means of GARNERING SUPPORT for the wars not as the actual reason they went to war, quite different things. So no, I do not believe that the US went to war out of a desire to help, but I do I believe that many people supported the wars as they were led to believe that war would help people. Get it now?