TV3 Misteri Nusantara scorn buddhist monk
BoBoY
Thailand, is mind above matter but if it's something to do with islam they
will praise allah and accept it without question. He should have kept his
mouth shut as a mark of respect for someone else's religion.
Scott
Ignorant, disrespectful and being stupid at all times..
"BoBoY" <Bo...@boboy.com> wrote in message news:3f4a1...@news.tm.net.my...
blorg2k3
> Now, can you blame US for kicking these idiots assess?
> Ignorant, disrespectful and being stupid at all times..
By the same token, you wouldn't blame _me_ if I kicked your ass
because the some Christians in Ireland are "ignorant and
disrespectful", right ? :)
blorg2k3
Scott
Trying to take this issue personally..
"blorg2k3" <blor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:344536d3.03082...@posting.google.com...
Ahmad Sayuthi
> This 'idoit' below is a prime example of my previous illustration..
> Trying to take this issue personally..
Hardly. And I can't see whatever it was that you're trying to illustrate.
BTW you appear to be in the same place as one particular deceitful bigot
here. Just neighbours? Or one and the same person?
RoGuE
and Malaysia is relying on loans from a Buddhist nation(i.e. Japan ) it is
wise to watch one's mouth.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
"
FearLESS
ulamak and TV3 are insulting buddhist and insensitive to other
religions.
People like Magoo and Osmana will run amok if you do the same thing to
their religion.
"BoBoY" <Bo...@boboy.com> wrote in message news:<3f4a1...@news.tm.net.my>...
mcitizenn
> Thailand, is mind above matter
hi.
can you elaborate what he meant by this? did he mean it was a
'natural' phenomenon? strange for a muslim cleric to comment on this.
what was the context?
abc
"mcitizenn" <mcit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86e21c46.03082...@posting.google.com...
> "BoBoY" <Bo...@boboy.com> wrote in message
news:<3f4a1...@news.tm.net.my>...
> > In tonight's program, stupid ulamak says mummified monk in Narathiwat,
> > Thailand, is mind above matter
>
Maybe some r just too sensitive just like the Bruce Almighty case.
BoBoY
What the ulamak tried to say is that there's nothing special or spiritual
about the mummified monk, it's his undertone that I don't like, implying
that only Islam is spiritual, what if someone else made the same comment on
a dead muslim, I'm sure they won't like it either. I'm sure he will make the
same comment on a dead buddhist, hindu, christian, etc, reserving his
praises for his dead muslim. Oh no, dead muslims cannot be explained but
dead non-muslims have an explaination for it.
I'm sorry if this offends muslims here.
ignoramus
toyota liteace
>
> What the ulamak tried to say is that there's nothing special or spiritual
> about the mummified monk, it's his undertone that I don't like, implying
> that only Islam is spiritual, what if someone else made the same comment on
> a dead muslim, I'm sure they won't like it either. I'm sure he will make the
> same comment on a dead buddhist, hindu, christian, etc, reserving his
> praises for his dead muslim. Oh no, dead muslims cannot be explained but
> dead non-muslims have an explaination for it.
>
> I'm sorry if this offends muslims here.
Though I'm a muslim but I tend to agree with you. Most muslims
are ignorant and for this they become insensitive of other religions.
In a muslim mind, only Islam is the best religion and non muslims have
no place in heaven which I think is absolute rubbish. Millions of
people have found peace in Islam and millions have found peace in
other religions too.
Toyota.
blorg2k3
> Aiyah why watch the kampong channel!!. The fact Buddhism is older then Islam
> and Malaysia is relying on loans from a Buddhist nation(i.e. Japan ) it is
> wise to watch one's mouth.
I'm not sure if Japan is a Buddhist nation. I thought the national
religion was shinto or something :
http://www.brow.on.ca/Books/Religion/Religion7.html#Heading4
Also from http://www4.justnet.ne.jp/~aoh/HINOMARU.HTM :
"The only religion of Japanese origin is Shinto(ism). In Shinto(ism),
a kind of an animistic polytheism, people worship souls which have
been believed to dwell with all the natural existences, and place the
Sun as the core deity. Furthermore, all the people are believed to
become gods after they die. Therefore, they have many gods.
Shinto(ism) is thus thought as something like the national religion,
though there is no legal ground."
blorg2k3
> are ignorant and for this they become insensitive of other religions.
Actually, most people of one religion are ignorant of the other
religions. But to say they're insensitive is something else
altogether.
> In a muslim mind, only Islam is the best religion and non muslims have
> no place in heaven which I think is absolute rubbish.
Um.. I think this happens in pretty much every religion.
blorg2k3
> "mcitizenn" <mcit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:86e21c46.03082...@posting.google.com...
> > "BoBoY" <Bo...@boboy.com> wrote in message
> news:<3f4a1...@news.tm.net.my>...
> > > In tonight's program, stupid ulamak says mummified monk in Narathiwat,
> > > Thailand, is mind above matter
> >
> > hi.
> >
> > can you elaborate what he meant by this? did he mean it was a
> > 'natural' phenomenon? strange for a muslim cleric to comment on this.
> > what was the context?
>
> What the ulamak tried to say is that there's nothing special or spiritual
> about the mummified monk, it's his undertone that I don't like, implying
> that only Islam is spiritual, what if someone else made the same comment on
> a dead muslim, I'm sure they won't like it either.
You don't like his "undertone" ? you mean you didn't like his tone of
voice ?
I'm sure he will make the
> same comment on a dead buddhist, hindu, christian, etc, reserving his
> praises for his dead muslim. Oh no, dead muslims cannot be explained but
> dead non-muslims have an explaination for it.
>
here you're setting up something just to criticize it (you're assuming
he will say something, and then knocking him for it.)
At any rate, what's the point of ranting here ? if you have a problem
with a private TV chanlle, take it up with them :)
mcitizenn
thanks boboy for the info.
what an irresponsible thing for this ulamak guy to do. and TV3 for
broadcasting it without balancing it with other opinions. its too sad
when clerics ignore their flock and go flogging their egos instead.
Sheesh.
PeeWee
It could be the same case as with the Chinese, i.e. many are
Taoist-Buddhists.
Japan maybe a Buddhist nation but the beliefs are, I think, a mix of
Buddhism and Shintoism or either one of them.
PeeWee
It was distasteful of TV3 to have an ulamak to comment on the issue and the
ulamak should have refrained from giving comments on the issue. TV3, if it
were to do things right, should have asked a Buddhist monk to comment. But
since when has TV3 done anything really right?
Anyway, in my very humble opinion, the mummification of the monk by
self-preservation has got nothing to do with God or Gods. It was an
"achievement" through his own right training and meditation and
purification. Enlightenment of a Buddhist has got nothing to do with God or
the Gods and everything to do with one's own efforts along the right path.
In Buddhism, it is within oneself that one purifies oneself and by proper
meditation, able to achieve some feats or so-called miracles. Buddhism does
not place emphasis on miracles because by oneself, one can do miracles. Many
of the Buddha's close monks had supernormal powers but the Buddha never
encouraged them to show it, except on a few occasions where it was
absolutely necessary. To the Buddha, supernatural powers and miracles are
nothing to shout about at all.
To bring out the Buddha-Nature within one, one depends on oneself and strive
by one's own efforts and none other; not on God or the Gods in all the
heavens above.
CyberGuru
spiritual
> > about the mummified monk, it's his undertone that I don't like, implying
> > that only Islam is spiritual, what if someone else made the same comment
on
> > a dead muslim, I'm sure they won't like it either.
>
> You don't like his "undertone" ? you mean you didn't like his tone of
> voice ?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=undertone
An underlying or implied tendency or meaning; an undercurrent.
>
> I'm sure he will make the
> > same comment on a dead buddhist, hindu, christian, etc, reserving his
> > praises for his dead muslim. Oh no, dead muslims cannot be explained but
> > dead non-muslims have an explaination for it.
> >
> here you're setting up something just to criticize it (you're assuming
> he will say something, and then knocking him for it.)
I'm not assuming, I know. I can accept his personal view as a muslim but he
should not say it out in the open on TV. It's like asking a Buddhist monk
about a muslim corpse, do you think he will comment?
>
> At any rate, what's the point of ranting here ?
I've made my point.
> if you have a problem
> with a private TV chanlle, take it up with them :)
1) Newspaper - they will never publish it.
2) E-mail - they will just delete it.
JERSEY GIRL
No please feel free to KICK ASS mine too ;-)))
ignoramus
this strange phenomenon? After all, this was a Buddhist holy person
who died and whose body turned into a mummy. Shouldn't an
explaination or theory be provided from a Buddhist perspective?
Pan
[snip]
>> In a muslim mind, only Islam is the best religion and non muslims have
>> no place in heaven which I think is absolute rubbish.
>
>Um.. I think this happens in pretty much every religion.
[snip]
Are you sure about that? Islam, Christianity, and...?
Michael
If you would like to send a private email to me, please take out the TRASH, so to speak. Please do not email me something which you also posted.
intruder
>> Though I'm a muslim but I tend to agree with you. Most muslims
>> are ignorant and for this they become insensitive of other religions.
>
>Actually, most people of one religion are ignorant of the other
>religions. But to say they're insensitive is something else
>altogether.
It all depends on how strong your believe is. Strong and faithful
believers are ignorant of the other religions.
But I do believe (as I see in Europe), that relative more Muslim are
stronger and faithfull believers than any other religion. This trend
has been increasing since 1980.
>
>> In a muslim mind, only Islam is the best religion and non muslims have
>> no place in heaven which I think is absolute rubbish.
>
>Um.. I think this happens in pretty much every religion.
True, but I do recall that some Hindu and Budhist claim otherwise.
Intruder
--One man tells a lie, dozens repeat it as the truth--
blorg2k3
> 2) E-mail - they will just delete it.
Here you go again.. you're making a decision based on what you
_assume_ they will do. Have you actually tried ? :)
blorg2k3
>
> Michael
Pretty much any major religion.. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism.. they
don't talk much about what happens to people who _don't_ believe in
their religion, but some other.
blorg2k3
> Buddhism and Shintoism or either one of them.
They're a Buddhist nation where the majority of people are not
Buddhists ? er.. how do you define 'Buddhist nation' then ? I
understand Japan has no official religion, so they can't be called a
Buddhist nation because of that.
PeeWee
> > Though I'm a muslim but I tend to agree with you. Most muslims
> > are ignorant and for this they become insensitive of other religions.
>
> Actually, most people of one religion are ignorant of the other
> religions. But to say they're insensitive is something else
> altogether.
>
> > In a muslim mind, only Islam is the best religion and non muslims have
> > no place in heaven which I think is absolute rubbish.
>
> Um.. I think this happens in pretty much every religion.
>
Excuse me, but you're wrong there. In Buddhism, anyone who does good and
creates merits and avoids evil got a place in heaven regardless of what they
believe in. Heaven (or the Heavens) is no big deal where the Buddha is
concerned.
Pan
>> Are you sure about that? Islam, Christianity, and...?
>>
>> Michael
>
>Pretty much any major religion.. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism..
Does Buddhism say that non-Buddhists can't go to "Heaven"? Did
Siddhartha Gautama believe in "Heaven"? I don't think so. And I don't
think that a belief in "Heaven" as an abode of those attaining Nirvana
is a requirement in Buddhism. Isn't Nirvana rather an absence of self
than a fulfilling afterlife in a Utopia?
And what other major religion do you believe states that those who do
not adhere to it will not get into Heaven?
> they
>don't talk much about what happens to people who _don't_ believe in
>their religion, but some other.
Islam and Christianity certainly do.
Ahmad Sayuthi
You've got a good point here. Most people would simply assume that would be
the case. Plus use that as the `reason' why they didn't do anything to
highlight the matter. Based on my experiences, the proper thing to do is to
send it in first. If it isn't published/deleted or whatever, send in a copy
to the newsgroups/message boards etc.
--
www.alphaque.com 17500 Tanah Merah, Kelantan
FearLESS
Shut off your mouth if you don't know Islam is never wrong in Malaysia.
BoBoY
"toyota liteace" <toyo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7350f50e.03082...@posting.google.com...
BoBoY
"ignoramus" <remove_me...@freeonline.com> wrote in message
news:krppkv4q2o4ar311c...@4ax.com...
ignoramus
blorg2k3
Well then can Christianity be wrong ? or Buddhism ? :)
toyota liteace
> In Buddhism, anyone who does good and
> creates merits and avoids evil got a place in heaven regardless of what they
> believe in. Heaven (or the Heavens) is no big deal where the Buddha is
> concerned.
Buddha or no Buddha, this is what I want to believe in. This seems
to be very logical. Anyone who are kind hearted got to go to heaven
while the black hearted go to hell. Regardless of their religions and
this include the atheists and the agnostics.
Toyota.
PeeWee
"toyota liteace" <toyo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7350f50e.03082...@posting.google.com...
> >
Buddha or no Buddha, God or no God, let me shake your hands.
We all must learn to love one another, live with each other and respect all
sentient beings, alive or dead, living or non-living. We must not simply cut
down hills just to build houses without studying the impact on the
surroundings and etc etc.
Why is KL so hot? Can a few trees here and there do anything at all? Why
flash floods all the time? Why so many infertile couples? Why this why that?
No consideration for the things around us, that's why!!!
mcitizenn
> On 27 Aug 2003 14:20:02 -0700, blor...@yahoo.com (blorg2k3) wrote:
>
> >> Are you sure about that? Islam, Christianity, and...?
> >>
> >> Michael
> >
> >Pretty much any major religion.. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism..
>
> Does Buddhism say that non-Buddhists can't go to "Heaven"? Did
> Siddhartha Gautama believe in "Heaven"? I don't think so. And I don't
> think that a belief in "Heaven" as an abode of those attaining Nirvana
> is a requirement in Buddhism. Isn't Nirvana rather an absence of self
> than a fulfilling afterlife in a Utopia?
Nirvana is likened to joining a universal consciousness where you can
no longer affect the material and im-material world. It is a state of
non-soul-ness, from what I'm told. There are in-between transit realms
inhabited by certain folk who have attained a high level of
enlightment who can choose their rebirths. This is the only kind of
'abode' that non-material beings can inhabit.Otherwise they get
recycled. I was also told there isn't really a Hell realm either.It's
an analogy for the state of being for people/spirits who no longer can
reenter the cycle of birth/rebirth due to the burden of their
accumulated de-merits.
> And what other major religion do you believe states that those who do
> not adhere to it will not get into Heaven?
>
> > they
> >don't talk much about what happens to people who _don't_ believe in
> >their religion, but some other.
>
> Islam and Christianity certainly do.
Maybe Judaism too? And Bahaism? All those of the Book basically do say
something like that don't they? Purgatory and whatnot.
What about Sikhism and Hinduism i wonder?
BoBoY
I'm not sure, that's what my old ustaz used to tell me.
"toyota liteace" <toyo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:7350f50e.03082...@posting.google.com...
> >
Pan
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message news:<v4gqkv4khcl38ptos...@4ax.com>...
>> On 27 Aug 2003 14:20:02 -0700, blor...@yahoo.com (blorg2k3) wrote:
>>
>> >> Are you sure about that? Islam, Christianity, and...?
>> >>
>> >> Michael
>> >
>> >Pretty much any major religion.. Islam, Christianity, Buddhism..
>>
>> Does Buddhism say that non-Buddhists can't go to "Heaven"? Did
>> Siddhartha Gautama believe in "Heaven"? I don't think so. And I don't
>> think that a belief in "Heaven" as an abode of those attaining Nirvana
>> is a requirement in Buddhism. Isn't Nirvana rather an absence of self
>> than a fulfilling afterlife in a Utopia?
>
>Nirvana is likened to joining a universal consciousness where you can
>no longer affect the material and im-material world. It is a state of
>non-soul-ness, from what I'm told. There are in-between transit realms
>inhabited by certain folk who have attained a high level of
>enlightment who can choose their rebirths. This is the only kind of
>'abode' that non-material beings can inhabit.Otherwise they get
>recycled. I was also told there isn't really a Hell realm either.It's
>an analogy for the state of being for people/spirits who no longer can
>reenter the cycle of birth/rebirth due to the burden of their
>accumulated de-merits.
Thanks for the clarifications.
I think that a religion that believes in karma is quite different in
that sense from those that believe in a Judgement Day, with people
eternally rewarded or (at least in some sense) damned.
>> And what other major religion do you believe states that those who do
>> not adhere to it will not get into Heaven?
>>
>> > they
>> >don't talk much about what happens to people who _don't_ believe in
>> >their religion, but some other.
>>
>> Islam and Christianity certainly do.
>
>Maybe Judaism too
Nope.
>And Bahaism?
I don't know.
> All those of the Book basically do say
>something like that don't they? Purgatory and whatnot.
Nope. Catholics believe in Purgatory, but I'm not sure who else does.
Jews believe that any non-Jew can go to Heaven if s/he lives a good
life and obeys a set of 7 Laws of Noah (whether the person knows those
laws or doesn't, and regardless of what the person believes).
Furthermore, many Jews have a traditional belief that God wouldn't be
so cruel as to keep anyone out of Heaven for over 1 year, and that's
why we are not allowed to mourn for more than a year. There is no
fully-developed concept of "Hell" in Judaism, and there's debate about
whether there is or isn't a Hell. It's not clear to me whether there's
any consensus about what's expected to happen at Judgment Day, and
I'll try to remember to ask someone who's way more knowledgeable than
I. Remember that Judaism is a rabbinical religion, so there's debate
on all sorts of questions and consensus opinions are often hard to
find. What that means is that it's hazardous to conclude what Jews
believe based on only a reading of the Tanakh (Bible), though that's a
good place to start.
>What about Sikhism and Hinduism i wonder?
Hinduism believes in karma, right?
PeeWee
The majority are Buddhists but many of the followers also hold on to
Shintoism.
Buddhist nation meaning that most of them follow the teachings of the
Buddha.
That's the emphasis. After all, "official religion" is a concept enforced to
underline the upperhandedness of a race or religion or both.
michael
I have a 2003 Japanese almanac which shows the breakdown of religious
followers in that country (on 31/12/2000)
Shintoism = 50.1%
Buddhism = 44.3%
Christianity = 0.8%
Other religions = 4.7%
Disclaimer from the article, I quote:-
Since freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution, the government
does not conduct statistical surveys on religion. The "Religion Yearbook"
issued by the Agency for Cultural Affairs contains data provided voluntarily
by religious organisations. According to this data, the number of members
of religious organisations in Japan is about 215 million or close to twice
the country's total population.
regards,
michael ... afn2...@afn.org
PeeWee
The action of sucking adheres to some people.
PeeWee
"michael" <d1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bios50$bmqi1$1...@ID-170766.news.uni-berlin.de...
LOL!!! At the last sentence, of course.!!! OK, OK, it can mean a few things
there and i aint wasting time on that.
mcitizenn
thanks for the info on judaism. learn something new every day :-)
> > All those of the Book basically do say
> >something like that don't they? Purgatory and whatnot.
>
> Nope. Catholics believe in Purgatory, but I'm not sure who else does.
I know that Protestants keep trying to tell me I will burn in hell for
all eternity for not being a believer in jesus so they probably don't
think Purgatory applies to non-believers. Dunno about the rest of it.
> Jews believe that any non-Jew can go to Heaven if s/he lives a good
> life and obeys a set of 7 Laws of Noah (whether the person knows those
> laws or doesn't, and regardless of what the person believes).
Interesting. And what are these laws could you elaborate? Need to
hedge my bets :-D
> I'll try to remember to ask someone who's way more knowledgeable than
> I. Remember that Judaism is a rabbinical religion, so there's debate
> on all sorts of questions and consensus opinions are often hard to
> find. What that means is that it's hazardous to conclude what Jews
> believe based on only a reading of the Tanakh (Bible), though that's a
> good place to start.
Right. Thanks for the info. What's your take on the whole 12 tribes
thing in the Bible(old testament?). Does that mean they get a one way
ticket no matter what?
> >What about Sikhism and Hinduism i wonder?
>
> Hinduism believes in karma, right?
You're right they do. I don't know what that translates to for
non-believers though. Although for me, Hinduism has always seemed a
very 'human' religion, incorporating the common struggles of humanity
without too much abstraction. Easy to digest.
Pan
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message news:<9l8vkv846he81iog7...@4ax.com>...
>
>thanks for the info on judaism. learn something new every day :-)
>
>> > All those of the Book basically do say
>> >something like that don't they? Purgatory and whatnot.
>>
>> Nope. Catholics believe in Purgatory, but I'm not sure who else does.
>
>I know that Protestants keep trying to tell me I will burn in hell for
>all eternity for not being a believer in jesus so they probably don't
>think Purgatory applies to non-believers. Dunno about the rest of it.
This is from the Catholic Encyclopedia about Purgatory:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
It wouldn't surprise me if various Protestant denominations do believe
in Purgatory, and I'd expect that those closest to Catholicism may.
This site seems to show evidence that most of them don't - or do and
don't admit it, if you believe the Catholic missionary author's take
on it:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htm
I do believe that C.S. Lewis was an Episcopalian, and Episcopalianism
is essentially Anglicanism, which was traditionally a lot closer to
Catholicism than most (other) Protestant denominations.
Thus ends my remarks on this subject, and I apologize if any of them
reflect ignorance on my part.
>> Jews believe that any non-Jew can go to Heaven if s/he lives a good
>> life and obeys a set of 7 Laws of Noah (whether the person knows those
>> laws or doesn't, and regardless of what the person believes).
>
>Interesting. And what are these laws could you elaborate? Need to
>hedge my bets :-D
It was interesting to look through some of the results of a web search
on "Noachian Laws" because, as is the case with most aspects of Jewish
Law, there are as many takes on it as there are commentators. And in
this case, there are also Christians who are very interested in these
laws. So it's not that easy to find something that's merely
descriptive and explanatory but free of subjective commentary. In any
case, this link will take you to a clear and non-opinionated
presentation:
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Noah
>> I'll try to remember to ask someone who's way more knowledgeable than
>> I. Remember that Judaism is a rabbinical religion, so there's debate
>> on all sorts of questions and consensus opinions are often hard to
>> find. What that means is that it's hazardous to conclude what Jews
>> believe based on only a reading of the Tanakh (Bible), though that's a
>> good place to start.
>
>Right. Thanks for the info. What's your take on the whole 12 tribes
>thing in the Bible(old testament?). Does that mean they get a one way
>ticket no matter what?
No Jew I know of believes that all Jews will automatically have a
place in the Kingdom of God after Judgment Day, if that's what you're
asking. The concept of people being judged on the totality of their
behavior on that day, familiar from some denominations of Christianity
and Islam, is part of Judaism. But like many Christians and Muslims,
Jews consider that God alone will make decisions about what
constitutes sufficient merit.
>> >What about Sikhism and Hinduism i wonder?
>>
>> Hinduism believes in karma, right?
>
>You're right they do. I don't know what that translates to for
>non-believers though.
[snip]
Surely, karma is a universal law, or it's nothing at all.
mcitizenn
Thanks for this michael. Found it very interesting. The nuances and
shades in interpretation are astounding! I never knew this about
Judaism.
Found the first Law especially interesting- "establish courts of
justice". Are you able to tell me what the context for this was? To
uphold the six other laws perhaps?
> No Jew I know of believes that all Jews will automatically have a
> place in the Kingdom of God after Judgment Day, if that's what you're
> asking.
Yes that was it. You know, that was told to me by someone in bible
class in school and I still recall it. Thanks for sharing your
opinion.
> Surely, karma is a universal law, or it's nothing at all.
Well, I'm no expert on Buddhist doctrine but certain sects believe the
path to buddha state is only through the precepts and tenets as
prescribed. Thus, for example, certain holy men of India, may have
arrived at a level of spiritual growth but they are not deemed to have
reached the same enlightenment as one who practises the Buddhist
precepts. My example may not be fitting but I hope you see what I
mean.
Pan
<traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:06:59 GMT, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>
>>I do believe that C.S. Lewis was an Episcopalian, and Episcopalianism
>>is essentially Anglicanism, which was traditionally a lot closer to
>>Catholicism than most (other) Protestant denominations.
>
>He was an Anglican, not an Episcopalian.
>
>Episcopalian is just a US name for Anglican.
My mistake; he was English and not American, I guess? Frankly, when I
last read his books I wouldn't have known or cared where he came from.
Episcopalians, though part of the Anglican Communion, are different
from Anglicans in one very important way: They do not recognize the
authority of the Queen or King of England (etc.) over their church.
(And I actually _do_ know something about Episcopalianism, having
attended the Cathedral School of St. John the Divine [the school of
the Episcopal Archdiocese of New York, which is headquartered in an
enormous cathedral] for three years.)
Pan
>Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote in message news:<kt44lvsgqg6ctsuh1...@4ax.com>...> http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Noah
>
>Thanks for this michael. Found it very interesting. The nuances and
>shades in interpretation are astounding! I never knew this about
>Judaism.
>
>Found the first Law especially interesting- "establish courts of
>justice". Are you able to tell me what the context for this was? To
>uphold the six other laws perhaps?
That's what I understand, but if you really want to investigate this,
do a web search on Noachian and look at some of the links that contain
commentary on this. It can get pretty involved.
>> No Jew I know of believes that all Jews will automatically have a
>> place in the Kingdom of God after Judgment Day, if that's what you're
>> asking.
>
>Yes that was it. You know, that was told to me by someone in bible
>class in school and I still recall it. Thanks for sharing your
>opinion.
Certainly.
I've heard some Christians express the view that Jews are
automatically saved (or that they aren't, and are therefore damned
unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior), but I've
never heard a Jew make such a statement. The concept of an entire
people not having to do anything to affect their merit in God's eyes
seems foreign to Judaism, though I'd never exclude that there's
someone in some odd corner who's expressed such a viewpoint. On Yom
Kippur (the Day of Atonement), we pray to God to save us for the sake
of His Name, and not to weigh our merit as sinners harshly and,
therefore, wipe us out in the coming year (not with the idea that the
Jews are worse than other communities, by the way, so I hope this
doesn't give Jew-haters any weird ideas - we also pray that God
doesn't destroy the Earth by fire in the coming year), but if you ever
read the prayers of the Yom Kippur services, you'll see that they are
supplications and not confident statements.
>> Surely, karma is a universal law, or it's nothing at all.
>
>Well, I'm no expert on Buddhist doctrine but certain sects believe the
>path to buddha state is only through the precepts and tenets as
>prescribed. Thus, for example, certain holy men of India, may have
>arrived at a level of spiritual growth but they are not deemed to have
>reached the same enlightenment as one who practises the Buddhist
>precepts. My example may not be fitting but I hope you see what I
>mean.
Yeah, I do, but that sounds to me like it goes beyond the principles
of karma, which I understand to mean that the good and bad you do
redound to your good or bad, in this life or/and others. I'd welcome
any correction of my rather shallow understanding, though.
Best,
Stephen Lim
>I've heard some Christians express the view that Jews are
>automatically saved (or that they aren't, and are therefore damned
>unless they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior), but I've
>never heard a Jew make such a statement. The concept of an entire
>people not having to do anything to affect their merit in God's eyes
>seems foreign to Judaism, though I'd never exclude that there's
>someone in some odd corner who's expressed such a viewpoint. On Yom
>Kippur (the Day of Atonement), we pray to God to save us for the sake
>of His Name, and not to weigh our merit as sinners harshly and,
>therefore, wipe us out in the coming year (not with the idea that the
>Jews are worse than other communities, by the way, so I hope this
>doesn't give Jew-haters any weird ideas - we also pray that God
>doesn't destroy the Earth by fire in the coming year), but if you ever
>read the prayers of the Yom Kippur services, you'll see that they are
>supplications and not confident statements.
>
on the contrary mike (pity we didn't get to meet, uncle yap!!!)...
anyway, core to the beliefs of the jews are the concept of the
scarifical lamb...first expressed during moses period and subsequently
as part of the jewish tradition.
i though the main difference is the christians see Jesus as that very
essence of the symbolic lamb which the Jews was taught to practise as
the removal of their sins. Somehow they didn't catch that and miss the
meaning of the concept of christian grace.
Pan
<traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:22:40 GMT, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 20:11:09 +0900, Paul Saccani
>><traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:06:59 GMT, Pan <panNO...@musician.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I do believe that C.S. Lewis was an Episcopalian, and Episcopalianism
>>>>is essentially Anglicanism, which was traditionally a lot closer to
>>>>Catholicism than most (other) Protestant denominations.
>>>
>>>He was an Anglican, not an Episcopalian.
>>>
>>>Episcopalian is just a US name for Anglican.
>>
>>My mistake; he was English and not American, I guess?
>
>Wow, adding insult to injury! He was Irish.... ;)
Whatever. :-)
I never liked his Narnia series. Too much Jesus, too preachy. I much
preferred Tolkien in my youth.
>> Frankly, when I
>>last read his books I wouldn't have known or cared where he came from.
>>
>>Episcopalians, though part of the Anglican Communion, are different
>>from Anglicans in one very important way: They do not recognize the
>>authority of the Queen or King of England (etc.) over their church.
>
>Are you quite sure about that? That sounds more like the difference between the
>C of E and Anglicanism.
I always thought the Anglican Church and Church of England were one
and the same, though the Anglican Communion encompasses churches that,
like the Episcopalians in the U.S., do not recognize the sovereignty
of the Queen of the U.K.
>The head of the Anglican communion is the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the
>English sovereign. The sovereign gets to appoint that official, as head of the
>C of E.
Are you splitting hairs, then? Or perhaps the Episcopalians in the
U.S. are, because they recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury but not
the Queen.
>Basically the Episcopal is the same as all the non-UK members of the council.
>
>eg, Canada, Australia, Uganda, etc...
Wait: You're saying that members of the Anglican communion in
countries that recognize the sovereignty of the Queen like Canada and
Australia don't call themselves "Anglican" but rather "Episcopalian"?
>>(And I actually _do_ know something about Episcopalianism, having
>>attended the Cathedral School of St. John the Divine [the school of
>>the Episcopal Archdiocese of New York, which is headquartered in an
>>enormous cathedral] for three years.)
>
>"The Episcopal Church in the United States is a part of the Anglican Church
>throughout the world"- Episcopal Church information on the church.
It is part of the Anglican Communion. In practice, Episcopalians in
the U.S. do not refer to themselves as "Anglicans" nor is the church
called "Anglican" in this country. Perhaps you're suggesting it's all
semantics, and maybe it is.
Stephen Lim
>I always thought the Anglican Church and Church of England were one
>and the same, though the Anglican Communion encompasses churches that,
>like the Episcopalians in the U.S., do not recognize the sovereignty
>of the Queen of the U.K.
>
within england it is called church of england. outside england, both
anglican and episcopal are used. Of course due to history, the
establishment of the church of england was so that that certain king
can marry someone else..
>Are you splitting hairs, then? Or perhaps the Episcopalians in the
>U.S. are, because they recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury but not
>the Queen.
both US and Scotland uses the term Episcopal which basically means to
be governed by bishops...Archbishop of Canterbury is the "leader" of
all Anglican/Episcopal churhes throughout..
>Wait: You're saying that members of the Anglican communion in
>countries that recognize the sovereignty of the Queen like Canada and
>Australia don't call themselves "Anglican" but rather "Episcopalian"?
no, in SEA and some other part of Asia and Afica, they still keep the
term Anglican but this seems to be within the commonwealth (maybe
that's the clue there)...
>It is part of the Anglican Communion. In practice, Episcopalians in
>the U.S. do not refer to themselves as "Anglicans" nor is the church
>called "Anglican" in this country. Perhaps you're suggesting it's all
>semantics, and maybe it is.
>
>Michael
it is possibly semantic but also on the issue of "influence" and
"patronage" back to england which both scotland and US do not like to
be associated..when in essence both the doctrines (well things are
splitting up now) and practise both are similar and owe it to Church
of England..
Pan
wrote:
[snip]
>it is possibly semantic but also on the issue of "influence" and
>"patronage" back to england which both scotland and US do not like to
>be associated..when in essence both the doctrines (well things are
>splitting up now) and practise both are similar and owe it to Church
>of England..
This seems like a good summing-up to me.
I believe that the Anglican Church in the American colonies changed
its name to "Episcopal" in 1776, though the Tory loyalists continued
to call themselves Anglicans, as did those in British Canada.
Pan
<traptinne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I am saying that the only difference is the name, as I said at the beginning.
>What you identify as a difference is in fact identical with most churches in the
>Anglican Communion/Church.
>
>From where ever the name sprang, it is quite appropriate for the Episcopalians
>to eschew the name Anglican if they want to, as it is a nationality, even if
>archaic.
Maybe I was slow to understand what you meant, but we've come to
agreement.
Best,