[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

Bethberry, it's quite simply really. When religion is separated from myth, as it has been done by the Church over the centuries, it becomes propaganda; that which is pervaded by dogma. Dogma divides like a sword because it seeks to use political coercion to convert masses. Therefore, myth becomes "faith."

Leaving aside for now that word "Therefore", which I do not believe logically follows from the previous sentences nor leads to its own clause . . . .

I beg your pardon? How on earth (or Middle-earth) does this relate to my point? What relationship has "the Church" had to Buddhism?

I think I need to reiterate our discussion so far:

I responded to your post #62 in which you (apparently) quoted (no quotation marks) from Allan Alford to the effect that "the primary element in religion" [is] the Supreme Being (or God)".

I pointed out that this might not be the case, as Buddhism, which is widely regarded as a religion, has no supreme being. (If we can't agree on first principles, then there's little chance for understanding.)

You denied it was a religion, and called it an ethical philosophy and you accused some Buddhists of worshipping Buddha and ascribed to them the act of "practicing coercive dogma" as a result of this practice. I pointed out that this statement is incorrect: Buddhists do not worship the Buddha, and so they cannot have this coercive practice.

You have replied that this coercive practice comes from the Church, by which I assume you mean the Holy Roman and Catholic Church. But when has "the Church" ever had any leading or commanding role in the development of Buddhism? What's the connection? You're pulling things out of the air and yoking them together when they have no logical or historical relationship with each other.

My initial point was to suggest that not all your facts are agreed upon. That is, you make authoritative statements that in fact are not true and have not been proven true. They are truely not as authoritative as you assume them to be.

Your entire theory is like this: illogically linking ideas, making deductions that are untenable, making flying leaps of comparisons, and I might add not using words correctly. (In addition to the "therefore" I mentioned above, in post #63 you claim that "modern linguistics" defines myth assynonymous with lies, but this is incorrect: Linguistics deals with grammar, morphology, phonology. It is the discipline of lexicology that studies the specific practical meaning of words. )

Originally Posted by Dakêsîntrah

In prehistory, myth was not, nor ever was intended to be divided from ritual (that which is conceived by experience, ie, religion. It was merely a passion and resurrection play that mirrored the cyclical nature of the cosmos.

I have no clue what the first sentence here means. (Haven't you just tried to argue that religion is propaganda, and so therefore not "conceived by experience"?) Nor how it relates to my point that religions use rituals whereas philosophies do not.

This aside about the nature of religion does not relate closely to the topic of this thread nor to the more topical point which Morth and Nerwen make, but it seems emblematic to me of the difficulty in accepting your claims.