Are Thai people really Buddhist?

[Kitschiguy]

Jesus did not die for religious reasons, he was in the eyes of the authorities

at that time a terrorist.

When somebody stands up and says in an totallary system

I AM THE NEW KING OF JUDAEA

ruled by the Romans, you know now why he died.

In a sytem like Hitler, Stalin he would had only lived 1 hour after, and the system at that time was very similar.

[Loburt]

To be honest mate, I find it hard to bring what's written in The Old Testament in to a dscussuion anyway. It can hardly be used as evidence.

Well, I find it hard to bring what's written in the New Testament, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Kama Suttra, etc., into a discussion. It can hardly be used as evidence.

[Kitschiguy]

To be honest mate, I find it hard to bring what's written in The Old Testament in to a dscussuion anyway. It can hardly be used as evidence.

Well, I find it hard to bring what's written in the New Testament, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Kama Suttra, etc., into a discussion. It can hardly be used as evidence.

That's perfectly true. except for the Kama Sutra

[Aphrodite]

I cannot really say "Thai" people are really Buddhist or not but I think most of us believe in Karma that what comes around goes around!! I'm not so religious which seem to be really bad to my mom cos I havent been to the temple for years now. I was told that I should at least go there once a year or try to find time to do some charity or donate some money to the temple or dead people. Not sure if most farangs would understand what im talking about here but its all about what we believe in rather than what we try to show what we are...

[Kitschiguy]

Aww..

[eagle]

Religions are supposed to be guides for us humans as we are wayward souls. If one was a perfect Budhist he would be God. :shock:

One does have to wonder, just how many of them were actually created for that purpose :roll:

I think the original "men" had the best intent but the dam power perferts got to it. :roll: :twisted:

[Kitschiguy]

Yea..

[dannyboy]

Another cheap shot. No thanks.

No more cheap shots, are you crazy ?

I love cheap shots and happy hour at Gullivers is great.........

[steevolution]

I always find this fact intermeresting . . .

The relation between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of the Vedas) and what is called Buddhism at the present day, is nearly the same as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was a Jew, and Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus Christ, nay, crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya Muni as God and worship him. But the real difference is that Hindus want to show between modern Buddhism and what we should understand as the teachings of Lord Buddha, lies principally in this: Shakya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfill and not to destroy.

. . . and I think it proves statements like yours are flippant, pointless and typically dogmatic.

The finer philosophical points of this subject can't really be delved into in comments lik this, unless you're prepared to get a Ph.d in theology.

.

What are these crazy Ideas?

Wat are these practices?

Actually, can you explain any of this?

Why should I? You've already decided it's flippant pointless and dogmatic, and then you tell me you don't get it.

Did you drink something funny?

You tell me it takes a phd in theology to understand what it's all about. Sounds like you have a pretty impressive resume to debate this stuff.

Tell us all about it and then we'll tell you how great you are.

I didn't say I don't get it. I asked if you could explain it. Why should the fact I've decided (I haven't, I suggested. I'm willing to change my mind) your comments are flippant, pointless and dogmatic mean that you should not have to explain what you have written. If you're prepared to enter a debate you should be prepared to explain your theories. Otherwise they are merely, flippant, dogmatic and rather pointless comments (in a debate).

I gave one point of view and backed it up with some factual information. You made some flippant comments and didn't back them up at all which is why i asked if you could explain them. This is why I think they are pointless. It's a typically dogmatic view. Then you take a rather cheap shot by suggesting I may have imbibed something that may have affected my thinking.

With regards to my resume and telling you all about it so you tell me how great I am. Another cheap shot. No thanks.

Sorry that I wasn't clear enough for you, maybe you were the only one interested.

- an organisation that's corrupt

Religious organisations are about using people fears and beliefs to create a rich clique of "priests" that can perpetuate itself without contributing practically to the work to be done. They need money and contributions to enjoy a life of contemplation and spiritual support to the community, I guess.

- a set of crazy-fake ideas nobody rrrreally believes in

Do you believe virgins give birth to sons of Gods?

Do you believe you'll come back as a monk next time if you perform nicely?

Do you believe there's a God out there managing all of this sh*t?

Don't tell me Buddha isn't a God. I know that. But people need a God to help themselves so they'll worship Buddha like a God. Do you believe a dead guy is going to help anyone?

- a convenient mask for help-yourself polytheism (saints/jatukams)

Most of religious behavior is motivated in egoism. People perform a ritual or an act to get some benefit. To increase credibility religions provide 'specialisation'.

For every problem there's a specific saint to pray to, with its official statue even. For every specific need there's an amulet to be worn by right-thinking buddhist.

- a few escape mechanisms to allow anything to go

Any perversion or transgression of the rules is OK as long you confess it to some qualified member of the religious organisation. Take your pick what it is in buddhism Mr Specialist.

- a number of practices that give some structure to a meaningless life

Life is full of nothing. To give it some shape there are ceremonies in every religion that break it down into "meaningful" events so you wouldn't feel like a walking piece of sh*t. I'm talking baptism, communions, marriages, funerals. Each of those needs accompaniment by some qualified member (or group) of the religion you "belong" to.

- a number of ethical prescriptions that make little sense in real life

Don't do this and don't do that. All of that including murdering countless innocent people is done on grand scale, particularly so by the greatest religious bigots including catholics, jews, muslims. There's always the escape mechanism I mentioned earlier but to make sure you also need the managing clique there will be numerous interdictions of what is mostly natural behavior.

Don't lust for your neighbor's wife? Don't pray to more than one God? Don't eat this and don't drink that? Don't come in plastic? Ridiculous.

- the illusion you've lived for a reason and you're not going to die for always

There's always an afterlife.

Yes, you'll resurrect and go to heaven or enter hell depending on the bonus points you've collected down here.

Or you'll come back as a lower this or a higher that depending on your karma.

Death isn't the end as long as you're a good member of our club.

- support for the lie that it makes sense to be unimportant and good and subservient instead of cheat and kill and lie to each other like the big boys do.

Religions always explain very clearly that the little people are those that will make it, those that are the example for the bigshots. This is the same thing as telling people: you're small but you're ok you know, no need to improve your lot here. You'll be fine, much better than the rich bastard there. If this component is missing those in power tend to wipe out the members as dangerous revolutionaries.

- all of that is optional of course, even if you do nothing they'll still count you in because no sheep should go lost

Yes, religions want to be as numerous as possible. Every little sperm counts. That's how 95% of the population is (theoretically and practically) a buddhist. Mainly by lack of imagination sure. Whatever part of it you don't do, follow or believe, you can always pretend you're a member because being big is good for a religion. There are loads of excuses as well as mechanisms to join again and again as a member in practically all religions.

I think it sounds pretty simple the way I formulate it. you should be able to get the point, even if it's pointless. No phd needed really I think. If you still think it's flippant, pointless and dogmatic then I can't help you kitschiboy.

I don't describe religion as it works in the books but as it works in reality and in the lives of the many that are supposed to be 'believers'.

Sure some individual thinkers are way beyond all this, but I don't see them as representative members of their religion. They're more like dissenters, they have their own ideas about what their religion "should be" and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what IS.

I hope I didn't waste my time on you.

Dude, none of this is fact, weather it's according to the Bible, The Koran, The Pali Canon or Theology scholars. This is just your opinion. You're not debating this subject. You are telling us what you think. But, of course you are entitled to. I hope you don't mind that I still think it's pretty pointless and dogmatic (and not simple)

Dude, there is nothing in the Bible, The Koran, The Pali Canon or anything Theology scholars spout that can be used as FACT.

It seems like a typical atheists point of view. To me it only highlights the fact that you haven't understood or not yet learned about the finer philosophical points that lie within the worlds great religious teachings.

speaking as a Spiritual Anarchismiste/Animist Manimal, rather than an Atheist(as we all know they are about as trustworthy as Commies. please see the "What Do I Call Myself" thread in the Religion and Philosophy forum) speaking as a Spiritual Anarchismiste, he is pointing out the commonalities between organized religions, how they really work in this world, nothing to do with angels on the heads of pins.

Humans are religious animals, and alway's have been. Even Cro-magnon Man was religious. The way you and me think has been shaped (to some degree at least) by religion, but you either aren't aware of it or don't wish to believe it.

and THANK GOD that gobbledygook is dying out rapidly among thinking people! people have been tortured and put to death over whether God (big-assed BlackWoman in the Sky) is one entity or a holey (whooops, Freudian slip. meant HOLY as in holyshitbatman) trinity, or some other such wholly foolish fooferall. ****! tortured to death with hot pokers and ****.

"i'm in for rape and murder. howbout you Kid?"

"uh, denying the existence of the Holy Ghost, Sir."

Buddha did not intend for people to practice Buddhism the way they do. He gave no instructions for the building of temples or stupas. And in fact, discouraged prayer, rites and other superstitious practices in favour of meditation and insight.

People are right about religion. It's been corrupted. By people.

In Phitsanulok, Wat Yai, which houses the Chinnarat Buddha, takes over 12 million baht every year in donations. Yet, outside every 7/ll and V.Shop in the city sits a beggar. And young women are walking the streets looking for customers while their babies are wrapped up in baskets on the roadside. Don't blame Buddha. It's for these reasons he left his privileged life behind him and became an ascetic ans eventually a spiritual teacher. Blame people. Maybe you. People who think that religions are a bunch of 'crazy-fake' ideas that 'nobody' believes in and who haven't got the strength of character to practice them as the teacher intended.

and this seems to ME to be where the two of you agree. religion is corrupt, leaving aside the beatiful ideas behind it. the practical reality is that religion is corrupt and used to manipulate people.

You still haven't explained these crazy Ideas. You asked me several question instead.

First explanation ended - 'I guess' Yeah it was a guess, not fact.

'Do you believe virgins give birth to sons of Gods?'

Is this the extant of your understanding of Christianity?

it is my understanding that many Christians believe this.

'Do you believe you'll come back as a monk next time if you perform nicely?'

Is this the extent of your understanding of Karma/Samsara?

it's my understanding that many people doing their best to perform nicely believe it.

What my interpretation of God is, is unimportant. I haven't given my opinion. Merely stated some facts and given some, not necessarily my, points of view. What is your interpretation of God, and what is all this 'sh*t'? If you happen to be in Bhodi Gaya (where Buddha gained enlightenment) (or anywhere) and a leper with no eyes or legs crawls up behind you and grabs your ankle, ask him what his interpretation of God is. You see, not everyone has the fortune or strength, or what you might call courage to be as flippant about the concept of God as you are.

yeah, crawling Indian lepers always make the conversation more spiritually intense and honest.

As for the rest (most, not all) of what you said; It seems that the generalisations and blatant disregard of the fundamental differences of the major religions are hardly worth dignifying with an answer.

Apart from this. You are not talking about what IS. You are talking about what you don't know. Ask the practitioners of these religions, before trying to sum up the beliefs of nearly 4 billion (est.) people in a few paragraphs.

well, aside from the fact that he was stating the commonalities, we DO need to make sure he interviews EVERYGODDAMNONE before he posts agin.

Maybe not a Phd then. But some further study for sure. It seems that your own belief system has set in deeply though.

i've got no "sheepskin", but i'm lookin fer a black turtleneck as we speak.

PS having said religion is used to manipulate, i have to say that i REALLY APPRECIATE the fact that one out of ten Thai men is a monk, and that the religion here allows a largely dirt poor and barely literate population to be so peacefully controlled, as opposed to where i'm from where the not nearly so poor population will cut yor throat or beat you to death if you don't step carefully at times, lively at others.

[babyoiy]

I cant say on behalf of Thai but for myself, I'm not really a Buddhist, I just born in a Buddhist family so I follow them as there are some family activities that I love to do.

Those who convert to other religion are very religious... someone like me is def. not a religious one. But I listen to anything that reasonable and Buddhism is the best so far.

[steevolution]

Of course (most) Thai people are really Buddhist, just check the (free downloadable - where GWB get's his info) CIA factbook.

(No, not the Dalai Lama, he's too busy hijacking cars and trying not to look like Obama bin laden.)

and this is "Tres Hereclitien, j'admets". the sound of one hand slapping a Three Stooges forehead.

while pointing out that a bunch of Arabs standing around outside the Whitehouse, ogling the women while debating "Is the US a Christian Country?" would not be appreciated, i am gonna say that there is more "Live and Let Live" in Thai than any other place i have been. so for me that makes it a Buddhist country. it's what's in your heart, not what passes your lips. and that's a copyright stevo2008 muthrf**ker.

[maidai]

The following article appeared in the Bangkok Post on 5/4/2007. It was at least partly motivated by the recent debate as to whether to include Buddhism as the sole national religion in the new Thai Constitution.

Strange and stupid wah.. , why they worried so much about it, 95% of thailand population are already Buddhists, no matter include or not include it in constitution...

Ur right, what does it matter what the article says, Thailand is 95% Buddhist. Whether it be in the constitution or not, it is the heart and Soul of Thai Culture.

In the modern era, I dont feel any country should make any religion as the official religion. Whether Buddhism is made the official religion or not, doesnt mean anything.

[PJack]

no, they are too small an cute for that