When does Ecclecticism become it's own thing?

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

I um... already abandoned that argument in favor of your later one in this thread...

Otherwise I would have defended my old one when you disagreed earlier. >.>

Sorry. I didn't reread the thread when Moving posted. ninja

Movin on Up

I guess. But even if your group's new thing is mostly just a copy of one something else, you might get to call it a new sect.

Yeah... kinda like how the Protestant Christians aren't Catholic or Orthodox?

Quote:

Kinda like how I get the impression that a lot of Zen Buddhism came from Taoism and some local tribe stuff.

How odd. I always thought it came from Mahāyāna Buddhism with emphesis on the teachings of Bodhidharma.

Quote:

I see where youre coming from by saying it needs to be codified and all. But nothing is really done being codified.

You don't really see what I am saying. What I am saying is that at some point, the tradition isn't about being eclectic, and it becomes an orthodoxy/orthopraxy.

Quote:

The Pope still makes proclamations,

So? That doesn't make Catholicism eclectic. It means it isn't static.

Quote:

new Baptist-knockoffs with their own spin set up everyday.

Doesn't make Baptists eclectic either.

Quote:

If you live in the right part of the bible belt, you can watch religions evolve if you pay attention! The only reason something like that wouldnt change is if its already dead.

Change is not eclecticism. Eclecticism is drawing from many different sources. When you can show me that the Baptists are actually doing this and are not simply having revelation, I'll concede.

Until then... you aren't supporting your premise.  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

I um... already abandoned that argument in favor of your later one in this thread...

Otherwise I would have defended my old one when you disagreed earlier. >.>

Sorry. I didn't reread the thread when Moving posted. ninja

It's okay.

Better than what I used to do. I used to go back to my last post and just respond to every post between that one and the end of the thread (sometimes a good two hundred pages in a long topic). People hated when I did that. x_x  

[Movin on Up]

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

I um... already abandoned that argument in favor of your later one in this thread...

Otherwise I would have defended my old one when you disagreed earlier. >.>

Sorry. I didn't reread the thread when Moving posted. ninja

Movin on Up

I guess. But even if your group's new thing is mostly just a copy of one something else, you might get to call it a new sect.

Yeah... kinda like how the Protestant Christians aren't Catholic or Orthodox?

Quote:

Kinda like how I get the impression that a lot of Zen Buddhism came from Taoism and some local tribe stuff.

How odd. I always thought it came from Mahāyāna Buddhism with emphesis on the teachings of Bodhidharma.

Quote:

I see where youre coming from by saying it needs to be codified and all. But nothing is really done being codified.

You don't really see what I am saying. What I am saying is that at some point, the tradition isn't about being eclectic, and it becomes an orthodoxy/orthopraxy.

Quote:

The Pope still makes proclamations,

So? That doesn't make Catholicism eclectic. It means it isn't static.

Quote:

new Baptist-knockoffs with their own spin set up everyday.

Doesn't make Baptists eclectic either.

Quote:

If you live in the right part of the bible belt, you can watch religions evolve if you pay attention! The only reason something like that wouldnt change is if its already dead.

Change is not eclecticism. Eclecticism is drawing from many different sources. When you can show me that the Baptists are actually doing this and are not simply having revelation, I'll concede.

Until then... you aren't supporting your premise.

When an eclectic thing starts having its own rules and such it becomes its own religion. I agree with you there. And you know, enough people believing "the same thing" is kinda hard to really verify without something solid to stand on.

Well, what about when something just becomes a new sect of the same old stuff? That's what my examples were trying to show. Yes, Zen Buddhism is mostly Buddhist, by definition. Yeah, I got my info crossed between Tibetan and Zen Buddhism. My bad.

Its Tibetan Buddhism that pulled in ideas from previous local faith. Im not sure, but it may even have a bit of Taoism in there too.

And those Baptists keep throwing around new ideas that aren't a part of the religious framework of Baptist Christianity. Even if by Revelation they do change the faith, and differently for different folks in different churches. Its kinda famous in my town where 2 preachers from different churches got into an argument over who's rant was right. But you're right. Since I can't tell you where each got their ideas from, its not eclecticism.

Some of the Catholic Saints are though. A lot of those saints were just re-tellings of other faiths' deities for the sake of pulling in more converts.  

[TeaDidikai]

Movin on Up

Its Tibetan Buddhism that pulled in ideas from previous local faith. Im not sure, but it may even have a bit of Taoism in there too.

Really? Last I checked Tibetan Buddhism stemmed mostly from combining Mahayana, Hīnayāna and Vajrayana, though, to be fair, last I checked some of the schools within Tibetan Buddhism think of Vajrayana as a part of Mahayana.

Quote:

Some of the Catholic Saints are though.

I'll wait for you to prove that a Canonized Saint is lifted from another tradition. Because frankly, I think you're spouting revisionist garbage. Name the Saint and your proof and I'll show you mine.  

[Movin on Up]

TeaDidikai

Movin on Up

Its Tibetan Buddhism that pulled in ideas from previous local faith. Im not sure, but it may even have a bit of Taoism in there too.

Really? Last I checked Tibetan Buddhism stemmed mostly from combining Mahayana, Hīnayāna and Vajrayana, though, to be fair, last I checked some of the schools within Tibetan Buddhism think of Vajrayana as a part of Mahayana.

Quote:

Some of the Catholic Saints are though.

I'll wait for you to prove that a Canonized Saint is lifted from another tradition. Because frankly, I think you're spouting revisionist garbage. Name the Saint and your proof and I'll show you mine.

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Bon had some animistic origins and influenced Tibetan Buddhism as well.

The Catholic Saints - after looking into it more... yeah, looks like you've got me there.  

[TeaDidikai]

Movin on Up

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Bon had some animistic origins and influenced Tibetan Buddhism as well.

Why would animism be limited to a single sect of Buddhism?

Quote:

The Catholic Saints - after looking into it more... yeah, looks like you've got me there.

If it makes you feel any better, it's something I had to research in detail myself.

Folk Saints on the other hand... ninja  

[Recursive Paradox]

TeaDidikai

Movin on Up

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Bon had some animistic origins and influenced Tibetan Buddhism as well.

Why would animism be limited to a single sect of Buddhism?

Hasn't animism influenced a freaking ton of religions?

Unless I'm forgetting what I know about it, it has influenced my path quite a bit too.  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

Hasn't animism influenced a freaking ton of religions?

Yep. To say nothing of the fact that it can be held as an ideology independently of religion.