Buddhas are omniscient but not omnipotent, so asking them to act in one way or anothr may be futile.
In that respect, yes, it acknowledges the existence of gods and demi-gods. However Buddha was clear that one should not expect him to do things for you or to 'save you', you have to do it one your own. In that sense, since the Buddha did not set himself up as a god, it is not theistic.
Quote from: santamonicacj on May 12, 2011, 11:41:40 amIn that respect, yes, it acknowledges the existence of gods and demi-gods. However Buddha was clear that one should not expect him to do things for you or to 'save you', you have to do it one your own. In that sense, since the Buddha did not set himself up as a god, it is not theistic.I've always had an uneasy feeling that sects, entire SECTS allow the masses to donate money and are allowed to go to temples and such and pray for fortune...it's really bad and quite rampant in some places....
Quote from: Rael on May 13, 2011, 09:25:18 amQuote from: santamonicacj on May 12, 2011, 11:41:40 amIn that respect, yes, it acknowledges the existence of gods and demi-gods. However Buddha was clear that one should not expect him to do things for you or to 'save you', you have to do it one your own. In that sense, since the Buddha did not set himself up as a god, it is not theistic.I've always had an uneasy feeling that sects, entire SECTS allow the masses to donate money and are allowed to go to temples and such and pray for fortune...it's really bad and quite rampant in some places....Institutionalised corruption appears in many forms - not only rampant usury.There is also rampant sex in rampant sects.