Buddhism has no deity in a sense of a "prime mover" as their cosmology has no beginning or end. Gods are thought to exist but only as another form of sentient being which, curiously enough, is at a disadvantage to human beings in that only as a human being can one achieve enlightenment.

But it's not saying worship is bad, only the worship of other gods. It's a judgment about other gods, not a general declaration against worship.

Sure. Just like the seventh commandment doesn't proscribe all sex, just adultery.

This is just semantics ...I don't think there is a real disagreement. The 1st commandment is of a different character than the others but, looked at another way believing in God is "Good behavior" and believing in another is "bad behavior". But no need to split hairs and what is called behavior and what is not.

What is semantics is claiming that the 1st commandment is not judgmental because the commandments are all about 'behaviors'. The 1st commandment effectively prohibits polylatrism and respect for other deities.

"Gods are thought to exist but only as another form of sentient being which, curiously enough, is at a disadvantage to human beings in that only as a human being can one achieve enlightenment."

The Dharmapalas are enlightened. At least Tibetan buddhism effectively incorporates the Hindu pantheon.

Buddhism is tricky, though, on this subject. Dharmapalas are characterized in many ways which leads to some confusion on the subject. They are called bodhisattvas who is anyone that has generated this wish to attain buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings (but not necessarily enlightened), they are buddhas themselves but since time is without beginning then it is impossible to know how they became buddhas, they are emanations of a buddha....and I probably haven't exhausted the list. But they are quite clear that being a human being, provided the right causes and conditions exist, is necessary to attaining enlightenment.

Not just Hinduism but also Tibet's indigenous Bon-po shamanistic faith.

It's not really important (one might have to be human to be obtain enlightenment, but one can be enlightened & a deity, indeed all Dharmapalas are Buddhas, in Tibetan Buddhism), the more pertinent point is that Buddhism is awash in deities, and these deities are important to Buddhism. That Buddhism differs from Christian cosmology, who cares.

Because you could remove deities from the picture entirely and it would still not effect the basic practice of it....Zen Buddhism, more or less, has no deity involvement that I am aware of. Theravada Buddhism is absent of them as well. Deities came into the picture with Mahayana and Vajriana Buddhism and even then many of their practices don't involve deities at all. Therefore to say that this particular religion is just about God or gods is not accurate.

Putin, there's a difference between a deity being important in a religion and a religion being based around a deity or its worship.

"indeed all Dharmapalas are Buddhas, in Tibetan Buddhism" not always some are Darchen who were "pressed into service", so to speak, to serve Buddhism. Many by Padmasambhava the fellow who bought Buddhism to Tibet in the 8th century.

Zen Buddhism is a mystical/non-scriptural form of Mahayana Buddhism, and they most definitely believe in deities.

Therevada, it depends. Thais incorporate a number of deities (again the Hindu pantheon), and they're "Therevadas". I mean, throw a rock in Thailand and you'll probably hit a shrine to Phra Phrom.

I guess I should be more specific in that Practicing Zen or Theravada forms it is not a requirement as it is, in say, Christianity. You could meditate in those traditions for a lifetime and never go near a deity. Tibetan Buddhism is loaded with them to be sure but even then many meditation practices including some advanced ones (thinking of Mahamudra specifically) don't involve deities. Pure land Buddhism, however, does share many of the devotional characteristics of say Christianity. Which, I guess, leads to the best way of seperating the faiths Buddhism, by and large, is not a devotional faith where as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism ect...are.

"Reverence be unto thee, in the form of Buddha: reverence be unto the Lord of the earth: reverence be unto thee, an incarnation of the Deity, and the Eternal One: reverence be unto thee, O God! in the form of the God of Mercy: the dispeller of pain and trouble; the Lord of all things; the Deity who overcomest the sins of the Kali Yug; the guardian of the universe; the emblem of mercy toward those who serve thee—O'M! the possessor of all things in vital form. Thou art Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesa; thou are Lord of the universe; Reverence be unto the bestower of salvation I adore thee, who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Buddha, the God of Mercy.—Be propitious, O Most High God!" - inscription found in Bodh Gaya, where the 'Lord Buddha' obtained enlightenment.

That's not applicable for all forms of Buddhism.

Putin, go read an anthropology book before mandating that gods are a requirement for religions. There are a number of cultures that are said to have religions that have nothing to do with deities, only some supernatural power. I will not elaborate nor google that for you, as this should be common knowledge and easily located.

I'd like to get things back on track, now.

Grey, I know the comment was initially directed at Dys, but he seems to have left us, so I'll redirect to you. How can you claim that the OT stories are metaphorical when Paul uses them as true history and Jesus lineage is born out of this mythology (no disrespect intended with the term, I'm using it academically and not as a descriptive)?

Semck, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate your contributions.

Ask any Buddhist Lama or equivalent of another tradition if Buddha was just a man and they will say yes...or a old Buddhist saying "The only difference between an enlightened man an an unelightened man is that the enlightened man knows there's no difference." A single piece of lyrical text does not change the character of it's philosophical thought. Anyone who has practiced it ( except for the Pure land Buddhists) would tell you the same thing. Would Buddha have said "Be a light unto yourself" if salvation depended on anything but one's own effort? Any study of Buddhist philosophical thought would lead to no other conclusion. Can you find a source where Buddha specifically says to worship him?Or even implies it?

I wasn't saying ALL OT stories were metaphorical. There is clearly a mix between history and metaphorical in the OT. As for Paul, not taking into account what is or is not actually attributable to him, all I can say ( and I don't intend this as gospel, pardon the pun) is that ancient cultures did not have a clear distinction between the sacred and profane as we do. Seeing things as metaphor is a relatively modern.

"Can you find a source where Buddha specifically says to worship him?Or even implies it?"

Jesus never said for anybody to worship him either, seems to be irrelevant.

He implied it often (if you see me you see my father in heaven) and your avoiding the question. It is hard not to see you as quite intellectually dishonest...I'm trying but the prognosis is not good. Your good at marshaling facts to support a case but seek to avoid any that go against the party line...pun intended. Useful method for a courtroom but quite boorish in conversation. There is no give and take with you and I don't think that's ever going to change. The funny thing is a lot of what you find wrong in the world I agree with. Don't bother responding because I'm no longer listening.

"There is no give and take with you and I don't think that's ever going to change."

Sorry, where was your 'give and take'? I'm the boor and you're the one throwing the insults for disagreeing with you?

"Don't bother responding because I'm no longer listening."

Throw bombs and run away. Typical.

Grey, please do not go on the defensive. I am not attacking, merely playing devil's advocate for some quality discussion. My intention with this thread is to find a point when religion is too watered down, an ill-defined term I'll admit, not to heckle. You'll notice I haven't heckled the other thread since I started this one, no?

Now, the next question I have is a rephrasing of my last question: if the NT church was founded on the assumption that OT mythology was true, then can modern Christians strip that assumption but still hold onto the doctrine/ value derived from the assumption? If your answer is contingent on what you ascribe to be metaphor, please make a brief list of what is metaphor so that I may run to the NT and show where the story is taken as true history. If your answer is not contingent, then ignore this request.

Dub....that was not directed to you by any means I have not found anything offensive or disingenuous in any questions you have posed. so no worries :) My earlier contention was founded on the designation "true". Today we understand that as physically true and it is hard to imagine it otherwise. I am not so sure that is how the ancient world saw things. Therefore my point is not contingent on the NT authors recognizing the distinction. But apart from that I think that it is possible to find new meaning from the same doctrine. Those that lock themselves into the idea that the bible is the literal truth are struggling with the very problem that you bring up. It is notable, however, that the Catholic faith does not fall into this trap. They do leave room for metaphorical interpretation on many things. They are not creationists for instance. The idea, derived from the thought of Thomas Aquinas and stated in the Catholic catechism, is that Natural law (physical science) does not contradict divine law. This, of course, results in a number of paradoxes which are actually quite interesting to work through. This is actually an interesting expression of faith in that it leaves room for uncertainty about a number of issues. "Literalists" , however, seem profoundly disturbed by this.

Truth is the realm of philosophers and religious zealots, not to be confused with fact.

I agree....somewhat. Truth is a condition, a quality that "facts" possess in order to be considered facts. In pursuing truth we get facts or approximations of them we constantly refine in order to come closer to what is true. Scientific method pursues truth to come to understand the material world. Philosophers and the religious (do they always have to be Zealots?..If so the qualifier is kinda unnecessary) pursue greater understanding of the subjective world. There truth is called "wisdom"...Philo sophia "Love of wisdom"

"Truth is the realm of philosophers and religious zealots, not to be confused with fact."

I confess I have no idea what this means.

Mind explaining for a poor unsophisticated prole?

It was more a paraphrase of Indiana Jones' "Archeology is the search for facts. If you want the truth, so and so's philosophy class is down the hall" or something to that effect.

I suppose one could say that religion and science have different definitions of truth. For science most facts are not absolutely true but rather contingently true, while for religion truth tends to be more certain. Thus for science what is true today, might not be true tomorrow.

being true anmd being the truth are two very different things. Science finds things to be trua but not the truth. The truth is, as you point out, an absolute and scientists are willing to accept that their understanding may change. Therefore their is no truth in science, just things presumed to be true based on the facts at hand.