This all seems quite off-topic, but, you know, Buddhism is not a religion in the proper sense of the word.
Right, j_source. The problem with this statement is that there just isn't a "proper sense of the word".
I could not, possibly, begin to disagree more.
Buddhism is a religion. There is no "sense of the word" - other than definitions which demand a Judeo-Christian definitions of "God" - that would not apply to Buddhism.
Anyway, no need to derail - hijack further.
Sorry, I don't know if I'm following... I was disagreeing with rodentmind's assertion that Buddhism wasn't a religion in the proper sense of the word- indeed, I was disagreeing with rodentmind's confidence that there WAS a proper sense of the word, and in doing so I was agreeing both with j_source's aknowledgment of the word's contested state and hus support of Buddhism as a religion.
So I think we're agreeing, john_proctor... am I right? I've posted before on the importance of atheism to judeo-christian thought, so I certainly wouldn't argue with you about the fact that we need to think more broadly about what "religion", or any particular religion, is.
What I meant was: you can be any other religion and be Buddhist. You can be Catholic and be a Buddhist. It's not exclusive. That's a major difference.
