of course, commie China hasn't exactly shown much love, either...have they? if you're gonna throw stones, be careful.
I am not speaking as a Christian, Max, rest assured. Don't you (or MR. MEOWGI) hold Dalai Lama to a higher moral standard than commie China?
As a good example of a person who can know god without Jesus. I have much disdain for the idea that only Christians know the way of Jesus. That idea is shortsighted, ignorant, arrogant, and dangerous. This does not sound like one who does not know what christians call god: http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=511 As for your article... I have heard that stuff before. I'm no historian. I am more interested in Buddhism than the history of Tibet. No one says Tibetan society was perfect. In fact, the DL has said that a move toward democracy was inevitable. Here are some links for you to check out: This one addresses an article like yours: http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2003/7/23_4.html Leaked PRC Statement on 'Tibet-Related External Propaganda' http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=68 And just for the heck of it, the DL did not call upon the British government to release Augusto Pinochet, rather: Visiting Chile as part of a South American tour, the Dalai Lama said, "in the Pinochet case, as an individual, now old," it might be best to forgive him, the Nobel laureate told reporters in Santiago. "I think forgiveness is important, but forgiveness does not mean to forget about what happened." http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1999/4/12_2.html I think you need to investigate more.
Your painstaking effort yields sources like these? LOL. MR. MEOWGI, there are many and much better ways to be a good Buddhist than to associate oneself with Dalai Lama. Nobel Peace Prize, uh? Even Yasser Arafat was a one time winner.
There was no pain. I think my sources are much better than Liam O Ruairc or China. Like I said I brought him up for one reason, to provide a known example. But from what I have read and seen, I find him to be pretty trustworthy and good, unlike you.
Yep, I had to humiliate myself once to cater to your fawning over a former slave owner, and one of the biggest hypocrite in the world Now make it twice. But that's it.
Well you are definitely an expert on the the Dalai Lama, the history of Tibet, and Buddhism as a whole. So I will post no more about it. Sorry, I never got around to answering this for you in the death penalty thread (it's "Buddhist" btw). I have been pretty busy lately. The answer is homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is ok. So don't worry.
I understand why it seems so arrogant that Jesus claims to be the only way to God. Think though, that is only an arrogant belief if He isn't. If He really is the only way to God and Heaven then that is a very loving and truthful statement especially considering what Christ went through, who He was and what He did on man's behalf. Think of this, if Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God in human flesh, and He did come and die for the sins of the world and He is the only way to Heaven, He has a loving and honest responsibility to let us know. Did Jesus ever act arrogant like He was somebody He wasn't? What evil did He do? He exposed hypocrisy, healed sick people, fed hungry people, never owned a home or sought peoples money, He only spoke the truth and then He willingly gave His own life in horrific suffering to take our place of punishment for our own selfish ways. And all this because of God's love. Please if you have ever been disappointed by a Christian or hurt by a Christian do not let that situation keep you from seeking more about Jesus. If He is the way, then we can be grateful He told us. If He isn't we will know soon enough after we die. He does not force you to believe, He asks you to believe. He will not argue about it or berate you. He will love you and reveal this to you if you seek Him. But He does not demand you seek Him, He offers it. It is for everyone, everywhere; and the gift is free. He is the way to God, yes the only way, but that is nothing He boasts about nor should any Christian be so arrogant. God hates arrogance but He helps the humble and contrite in heart. Let us be slow to think we know it all. No one should be offended by Jesus, He does not force His way into your life, it is offered to you by your own choice. Turn it off, that is your own choice, or look into it, again your choice. Jesus only asks His followers to spread the message so every single person has the opportunity to hear it. Here is the Jesus challenge: Just ask Jesus Christ sincerely to reveal Himself to you, then read the Gospel. No harm in that, if God is real and supernatural and He is the wise, good and loving God of the Bible then I am confident in what He will do for you. Try it. God bless you all. And I hope these discussion will encourage us all in our journey.
MR. MEOWGI, Don't get me wrong. I respect your faith in Buddhism, a religion which goes a long way in east Asia. In fact I have many friends who are Buddhists. What's troubling me is your blind trust in Dalai Lama and his immediate followers. What Dalai Lama preaches in public sounds great to everyone. But few people (in the West) really know his political motivation, and what he and his followers have been doing covertly. You want me to investigate more? Here's another one I found for you: The Dalai Lama's hidden past http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/248/248p23.htm (Don't let the words like "green" and "left" fool you. There's no lack of China bashing on this site. So it can't be a commie China's puppet as you would assume.) Comment by Norm Dixon Most solidarity and environmental groups supporting the Tibetan people's cause have not questioned the Dalai Lama's role in Tibetan history or addressed what it would mean for the Tibetan people if the Dalai Lama and his coterie returned to power. A 1995 document distributed by the Dalai Lama's Office of Tibet aggressively states that ``China tries to justify its occupation and repressive rule of Tibet by pretending that it `liberated' Tibetan society from `medieval feudal serfdom' and `slavery'. Beijing trots out this myth to counter every international pressure to review its repressive policies in Tibet.'' It then coyly concedes: ``Traditional Tibetan society was by no means perfect ... However, it was not as bad as China would have us believe.'' Was this a myth? Tibet's Buddhist monastic nobility controlled all land on behalf of the ``gods''. They monopolised the country's wealth by exacting tribute and labour services from peasants and herders. This system was similar to how the medieval Catholic Church exploited peasants in feudal Europe. Tibetan peasants and herders had little personal freedom. Without the permission of the priests, or lamas, they could not do anything. They were considered appendages to the monastery. The peasantry lived in dire poverty while enormous wealth accumulated in the monasteries and in the Dalai Lama's palace in Lhasa. In 1956 the Dalai Lama, fearing that the Chinese government would soon move on Lhasa, issued an appeal for gold and jewels to construct another throne for himself. This, he argued, would help rid Tibet of ``bad omens''. One hundred and twenty tons were collected. When the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959, he was preceded by more than 60 tons of treasure. Romantic notions about the ``peaceful'' and ``harmonious'' nature of Tibetan Buddhist monastic life should be tested against reality. The Lithang Monastery in eastern Tibet was where a major rebellion against Chinese rule erupted in 1956. Beijing tried to levy taxes on its trade and wealth. The monastery housed 5000 monks and operated 113 ``satellite'' monasteries, all supported by the labour of the peasants. Chris Mullin, writing in the Far Eastern Economic Review in 1975, described Lithang's monks as ``not monks in the Western sense ... many were involved in private trade; some carried guns and spent much of their time violently feuding with rival monasteries. One former citizen describes Lithang as `like the Wild West'.'' The Tibetan ``government'' in Lhasa was composed of lamas selected for their religious piety. At the head of this theocracy was the Dalai Lama. The concepts democracy, human rights or universal education were unknown. The Dalai Lama and the majority of the elite agreed to give away Tibet's de facto independence in 1950 once they were assured by Beijing their exploitative system would be maintained. Nine years later, only when they felt their privileges were threatened, did they revolt. Suddenly the words ``democracy'' and ``human rights'' entered the vocabulary of the government-in-exile, operating out of Dharamsala in India ever since. Dharamsala and the Dalai Lama's commitment to democracy seems weak. An Office of Tibet document claims ``soon after His Holiness the Dalai Lama's arrival in India, he re-established the Tibetan Government in exile, based on modern democratic principles''. Yet it took more than 30 years for an Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies to be directly elected from among the 130,000 exiles. Of 46 assembly members, only 30 are elected. The other 16 are appointed by religious authorities or directly by the Dalai Lama. All assembly decisions must be approved by the Dalai Lama, whose sole claim to the status of head of state is that he has been selected by the gods. The separation of church and state is yet to be recognised by the Dalai Lama as a ``modern democratic principle''. The right-wing nature of the Dalai Lama and the government-in-exile was further exposed by its relationship with the US CIA. The Dalai Lama concealed the CIA's role in the 1959 uprising until 1975. Between 1956 and 1972 the CIA armed and trained Tibetan guerillas. The Dalai Lama's brothers acted as intermediaries. Before the 1959 uprising, the CIA parachuted arms and trained guerillas into eastern Tibet. The Dalai Lama maintained radio contact with the CIA during his 1959 escape to India. Even the Dalai Lama's commitment to allowing the Tibetan people a genuine act of self-determination is debatable. Without consultation with the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama openly abandoned his movement's demand for independence in 1987. This shift was first communicated to Beijing secretly in 1984. The Dalai Lama's proposals now amount to calling for negotiations with Beijing to allow him and his exiled government to resume administrative power in an ``autonomous'', albeit larger, Tibet. The Dalai Lama's call for international pressure on Beijing seeks only to achieve this. There are indications that a younger generation of exiled Tibetans is now questioning the traditional leadership. In Dharamsala, the New Internationalist reported recently, young Tibetans have criticised the abandonment of the demand for independence and the Dalai Lama's rejection of armed struggle. They openly question the influence of religion, saying it holds back the struggle. Some have received death threats for challenging the old guard. Several recently-arrived refugees were elected to the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies. The Tibetan people deserve the right to national self-determination. However, supporting their struggle should not mean that we uncritically support the self-proclaimed leadership of the Dalai Lama and his compromised ``government-in-exile''. Their commitment to human rights, democracy and support for genuine self-determination can only be judged from their actions and their willingness to tell the truth.
But what does it mean that Jesus is the only way to god? I believe it means that the way Jesus lived and taught is the way to god. So what Jesus said is true, but it doesn't mean that this way and understanding can not be found in other religions. In fact you can study other religions to better understand the teaching of Jesus. How would this be possible if they were irrelevant? I have seen absolutely nothing to prove that Christianity is superior to all other religions. It just isn't true.
i do. but can you, as a Christian or otherwise, EXPECT someone to treat you better than you treat them? i'm not talking about whether or not the Dalai Lama has a personal obligation to forgive or return grace for violence...but China shouldn't be EXPECTING that. not given the way they've treated the Tibetian situation.
Max, please go back look at the start of this exchange. When and where did I say commie China should expect anything nice from Dalai Lama? I was merely pointing out the obvious - that it was easy (hence hypocritical) for Dalai Lama to ask other people to forgive their aggressors while he himself did not do what he preaches.
The late pope, His Holiness John Paul II, wrote in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, that Christ is absolutely original and absolutely unique. If He were only a wise man like Socrates, if He were a "prophet" like Mohammed, if He were "enlightened" like Buddha, without any doubt He would not be what He is. He is the one mediator between God and humanity. With the simple stroke of a pen the Holy Father relegates Western humanism, Islam, and Buddhism to second tier status at best; dismissing them along with everything else that isn't Christianity as "gravely deficient" religions, in the words of his successor, His Holiness Benedict XVI. Commenting on this passage, the venerable Zen Master, Thich Nhat Hanh, notes that Of course Christ is unique. But who is not unique? Socrates, Mohammed, the Buddha, you, and I are all unique. The idea behind the statement, however, is the notion that Christianity provides the only way of salvation and all other religious traditions are of no use. This attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination. It does not help.
suffice it to say, i disagree. i believe him to be unique. and frankly, i think it's closed-minded to say that because i believe that, i'm fostering religioius intolerance and discrimination...because i'm not. I don't share the notion that we have to agree to be able to get along and treat each other fairly. i have friends from all different backgrounds and spectrums who i love dearly. Christ isn't the impediment to my love for them...he's the very conduit. Christ didn't come to save some. He didn't say, "I only came to save this group...and THIS group over here is horrible, and I don't love them" He said he came to save the world, because he loved the whole world. Not sure how you can get more inclusive than that.
But when other religions share the good qualities and understandings as yours, you are. Sorry, but I trust a monk's whose life has been dedicated to fostering peace understanding over yours. But my path to discovering Jesus as one of my spiritual ancestors was not easy. The colonization of my country by the French was deeply connected with the efforts of the Christian missionaries. In the late seventeenth century, Alexandre de Rhodes, one of the most active of the missionaries, wrote in his Cathechismus in Octo Dies Divisus: "Just as when a cursed, barren tree is cut down, the branches that are still on it will also fall, when the sinister and deceitful Sakya [Buddha] is defeated, the idolatrous fabrications that proceed from him will also be destroyed." Later, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, Catholic Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, in his efforts to evangelize Vietnam, leaned heavily on the political power of his brother, President Ngo Dinh Diem. President Diem's 1963 decree prohibiting the celebration of Wesak, the most important Buddhist national holiday, was the straw that broke our back. Tens of thousands of lay and ordained Buddhists demonstrated for religious freedom, leading to a coup d'etat and the overthrow of the Diem regime. In such an atmosphere of discrimination and injustice against non-Christians, it was difficult for me to discover the beauty of Jesus' teachings. It was only later, through friendships with Christian men and women who truly embody the spirit of understanding and compassion of Jesus, that I have been able to touch the depths of Christianity. The moment I met Martin Luther King, Jr., I knew I was in the presence of a holy person. Not just his good work but his very being was a source of great inspiration for me. And others, less well known, have made me feel that Lord Jesus is still here with us. Hebe Kohlbrugge, a beautiful Dutch woman who saved the lives of thousands of Jews during World War II, was so committed to helping Vietnamese orphans and other desperately needy children during the war that when her government refused to support this work, she gave them back her World War II medals. Reverend Heinz Kloppenburg, General Secretary of the German Fellowship of Reconciliation, also supported our humanitarian work. He was so kind and so open, I only needed to say a few words to him and he understood everything right away. Through men and women like these, I feel I have been able to touch Jesus Christ and His tradition. Real Communication On the altar in my hermitage in France are images of Buddha and Jesus, and every time I light incense, I touch both of them as my spiritual ancestors. I can do this because of contact with these real Christians When you touch someone who authentically represents a tradition, you not only touch his or her tradition, you also touch your own. This quality is essential for dialogue. When participants are willing to learn from each other, dialogue takes place just by their being together. When those who represent a spiritual tradition embody the essence of their tradition, just the way they walk, sit, and smile speaks volumes about the tradition. In fact, sometimes it is more difficult to have a dialogue with people in our own tradition than with those of another tradition. Most of us have suffered from feeling misunderstood or even betrayed by those of our own tradition. But if brothers and sisters in the same tradition cannot understand and communicate with each other, how can they communicate with those outside their tradition? For dialogue to be fruitful, we need to live deeply our own tradition and, at the same time, listen deeply to others. Through the practice of deep looking and deep listening, we become free, able to see the beauty and values in our own and others' tradition. Many years ago, I recognized that by understanding your own tradition better, you also develop increased respect, consideration, and understanding for others. I had had a naive thought, a kind of prejudice inherited from my ancestors. I thought that because Buddha had taught for forty-five years and Jesus for only two or three, that Buddha must have been a more accomplished teacher. I had that thought because I did not know the teachings of the Buddha well enough. One day when he was thirty-eight years old, the Buddha met King Prasenajit of Kosala. The king said, "Reverend, you are young, yet people call you ‘The Highest Enlightened One.’ There are holy men in our country eighty and ninety years old, venerated by many people, yet none of them claims to be the highest enlightened one. How can a young an like you make such a claim?" The Buddha replied, "Your majesty, enlightenment is not a matter of age. A tiny spark of fire has the power to burn down a whole city. A small poisonous snake can kill you in an instant. A baby prince has the potentiality of a king. And a young monk has the capability of becoming enlightened and changing the world." When you dismiss what is good in other religions you dismiss what is good in your own. Jesus wasn't the first and last with his message. I don't see what Christianity has that other religions do not. I have myself experienced some goodness in other traditions that I did not experience in my own as a Christian. It is undeniable. This goodness and happiness is not exclusive to Christianity, period.
