Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I think that depends on the room and why people are there.

In time, even the stars grow cold.

There used to be a group called "Evangelic Agnostics". Their slogan was -- "I don't know and neither do you". Very close.

It's funny. A little combative for my taste. I prefer, "I don't know and I don't care." Still, your version does amuse me.

By definition, all nonprofits -- including churches -- should not be making a profit. All profits should be subject to the same tax. That includes salary for the clergy.

At least in it's inception, Buddhism was never about salvation. It was about ideas. People who are drawn to ideas might want a teacher, but not a master. They do their own thinking.

None of this bothers me. It's a church's business to attract a membership. There's nothing wrong with baiting the hook.

In Childhood's End, by Arthur C. Clark -- The aliens gave Humanity a new technology. It was now possible to verify all historic events. They were now subject to being viewed. No deception was possible. Of all the religions, only Buddhism survived. Even then, only "raified Buddhism".

How strange is it, that an Agnostic should come to be worshiped as a god?

I'm quite certain that Buddha would not get into an argument, over something so trivial, as arguing about "Agnosticism". He would regard it as a mere distraction on the Path. That was just me trying to crack funny. Sometimes my attempts at humor really fail.

I used to be in the Boys Club. Years after I had aged out, I found my old membership card and actually read the back of it. There was a line that said I was to worship God as I thought fit. I was astonished. At the time, I had no idea that line was there.

To my understanding, Buddha was interested in very basic things. "Why is everybody suffering? What can we do to reduce suffering? What Buddha did not care about was theology, and other esoteric crap. He was a practical fellow. One of the statements attributed to him was -- "Fire is hot. Ice is cold. All the gods in all the heavens won't change this.". The word didn't exist then. I think Buddha was an Agnostic. He didn't know and he didn't care. Of course, I could be projecting my own bias.

You raise different questions. The Boy Scouts of America does not accept Atheists. A scout must be "reverent". When I was that age, I had other issues. I saw no reason to put on a uniform and take orders. It was clear to me that I was not in the military -- and that I didn't want to join a social form of it. Parents have different reasons to join churches. It is not for me to judge. Some thought should go into which group, to hand over their child. Most mouse traps have bait. If I were going to join a Christian Church, I would probably go with Methodist. I do like good food.

In the Dhampada, the oldest collection of Buddhist writings -- Buddha is questioned by a young man. The seeker wants to be told about God. Buddha tells him that God's existence might not be the case. God doesn't exist? God's nonexistence might not be the case. The gods? The existence of the gods might not be the case. The gods don't exist? The nonexistence of the gods might not be the case. The soul? The existence of the soul might not be the case. There's no soul? The nonexistence of the soul might not be the case. Reincarnation? Reincarnation might not be the case. So it went. Buddha regarded such questions as not worth bothering with. That they were mere distractions on The Path.

You have been careful to avoid the trap of elitism. Sadly, I have encountered Atheists who have fallen into that trap. "I have outgrown religion and prayer -- but THEY still need it." You're right. There are some people who would fall apart, if they lost their faith. Others have outgrown their faith -- like you -- like me -- and come alive. As you say, it is an individual situation. I am persuaded that religious persecution -- the type of thing advocated by Gnostic Bishop -- is a multi-layered disaster.

Being a minister -- much like being a man -- is not what I "do". It's what I "am". It's not a job.

In the Bible, this traces back to Temple Judaism, explained in Leviticus. That is, the Levitican priesthood. There is a lot of detail about how animals are selected for sacrifice. How the animal is killed on the altar. How the flesh is cooked. Who eats the meat. Surprise. It's the priests. In a society where meat is hard to come by, the priests are eating the Temple sacrifices. The regulations for the Temple grain sacrifices, are also laid out in Leviticus. Surprise. The grains are selected, cooked and eaten by the priests. Leviticus is many things. One of them is a cookbook. It's good to be a priest. Now a brief look at the rest of society. Agriculture is a hard lifestyle. The work is hard and tedious. Being a farmer was not a great way to live. When it's time to pick up a sword in defense of Home and Temple -- life gets downright nasty and dangerous. It's good to be a priest. The cultures change. The details change. Always, it's good to be the clergy. Back to Buddhism. What would you like to do with your life? Being a rice farmer is a lot of hard, tedious, work. Or you can spend your life reciting Sutras, chanting, meditation and ritual. Surprise. Feeding the monk is good karma. The best. Professional beggars always think that charity is godly. Or Godly. It's one of those things that never changes.

Interesting. You think the clergy are beyond the reach of government prosecution? Would you care to put that to the test?

At minimum, we are all subject to ridicule, for being caught at plagiarism. It is also the case, that a plagiarist minister, brings disgrace upon his church. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?

I suspect that things started to go wrong with the class of professional Buddhist monk. What happens when there are too many lawyers? The laws get complicated. What happens when you get too many professional clergy? Simple truths become complicated -- then they stop being true. There is no reason to pick on Buddhism. Look at what the Jesus movement turned into. Taking Christian mythology at it's face value, look what happened. One man and twelve disciples. What do we have today? Give or take, about 40,000 different varieties of Christianity. I suppose there were too many seminaries, giving out advanced degrees. A priest or minister with a Ph.D. in theology, has to justify that degree, so he's going to make trouble. I'm in a bad mood. I'll stop now.

"Accidentalism"? Evolution is not an accident. Evolution is a process. The process was natural selection. I watched the You Tube video. I am not a physicist. A real physicist, like Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss would not have difficulty responding to this challenge. As ill equipped as I am with the math, even I have some familiarity with their ideas. It becomes less of a task to discuss these ideas, if we begin by not misrepresenting them.

I'm not a Buddhist. I wonder why this bothers me so much. It does.

The Bible is a tool for justifying what you want to do. You want to do something awful? There is a verse for that. You want to do something good? There is a verse for that also. The skill is bending Scripture to your will, so that you can justify what ever you want to do. After all, God said to do it. Onward, Christian soldiers. Onward as to war.

I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know that things in the Buddhist world had degenerated that far.

We can go much further than that. It doesn't matter whether or not there was a historic Socrates. What matters is the process of the Socratic dialog, to examine the true. Likewise, it doesn't matter whether or not there was a historic Buddha. What matters to Buddhism is the strength of the ideas. Not the person of Buddha. Christianity is different. The person of the historic Jesus, who was The Christ, does matter. Without a historic Jesus -- what does Christian faith count for? 1 Corinthians 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations 1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations