[Buddha-l] Re: Multi-cause vs single-cause

[jkirk]

> > Indeed! All the recent god or g-d belief talk is getting to be tiresome
and
> > has nothing to do with this list's focus, unless someone is discussing
gods,
> > that is deities, which might be relevant to this list, depending.
(Depending
> > on what should be obvious.)
> > Joanna
>
> Do you, Joanna (and Richard), object to God talk per se or to certain
> usages thereof?  It seems to me that the sort of God talk objected to (at
> least by Richard) is that utilized by his beloved right-wing brothers and
> sisters.  It has a moralizing quality to it that seems naive.  But what of
> God talk that is concerned with perceptions of reality, and the like?  I'd
> hate to think the same sort of bigotry of which the right-wing God talkers
> are accused is being transposed and manifesting itself here.
>
> Stan Ziobro
==================
My my, yes I guess we are just a bunch of bigots, au fond.

But for your clarification, most if not all god talk is irrelevant
to this list.

As I said in my post, which you chose to ignore, talk of gods (plural),
deities, and the like is appropriate because Buddhist texts occasionally,
depending on which texts, have much to say about them.

Any monotheistic god, God, or whatever you wish to dub it,
an all powerful creator god, was considered irrelevant by the
Buddha (fictitious or otherwise) himself, in no uncertain terms.

Meanwhile, almost any kind of religion or dharma talk can be,
often is, moralising one way or another. So what? That is not
the point.
Joanna