To An Eternal Now.....
-
I have to say for the record, that I don't think Neutral Onliner did anything wrong (as you implied) by bringing to our attention the plight faced by the Korean Buddhists....
I would however agree with your decision to lock the topic in the interest of harmony. -
Thanks for bringing this up.
I do find that locking the thread is appropriate.
But I also do not wish that it evolve into a fault of NO and we forget about the real traumatic incidents in Korea, where the real victims are actually Buddhists.
In fact I came across the web page N-O pointed out about these incidents. It is probably a fact, but I choose to believe that it may not be the truth. The fact is that it happened, the truth is that it does not represents the Christian community as a whole.
I learned something very important, thanks. -
It is also important for us to re-examine ourselves - all who has contributed their inputs, including myself.
Thanks. -
well just don think questioning the contradictions and difficult to accept parts is discrediting it. I think tat is fair when Christians claim, as many do with such insistence, that their religion alone is true, then they must be prepared to answer doubts which others might express about their religion.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I have to say for the record, that I don't think Neutral Onliner did anything wrong (as you implied) by bringing to our attention the plight faced by the Korean Buddhists....
I would however agree with your decision to lock the topic in the interest of harmony.
"Criticism of another religion only becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling"
-Mahaparinibbana Sutta
i rest my case
-
including meOriginally posted by concerned_man:It is also important for us to re-examine ourselves - all who has contributed their inputs, including myself.
Thanks. -
make friends not enemies.
iÂ’ll say for me, maybe itÂ’s good to do apologies. no big deal. it help to show Buddhists are not egolistic, and humble at heart even if oneÂ’s right. as the biggest enermy is conquer within.
/\ -
well ...may all be happyOriginally posted by sinweiy:make friends not enemies.
iÂ’ll say for me, maybe itÂ’s good to do apologies. no big deal. it help to show Buddhists are not egolistic, and humble at heart even if oneÂ’s right. as the biggest enermy is conquer within.
/\ -
Do u know what NO has done?Originally posted by Beyond Religion:I have to say for the record, that I don't think Neutral Onliner did anything wrong (as you implied) by bringing to our attention the plight faced by the Korean Buddhists....
I would however agree with your decision to lock the topic in the interest of harmony.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=195586
U dun sprout niceties abt inter religious peace and then go attack Christianity in another thread.... -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple.
[b]The man spoke first: Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary.
Mary: Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us.
I: Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss his ass?
John: If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you.
I: What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?
John: Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants and what he wants is to give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass.
I: That doesn't make any sense. Why...
John:Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?
I: Well maybe, if it's legit, but...
John: Then come kiss Hank's ass with us.
I:Do you kiss Hank's ass often?
John:Oh yes, all the time...
I:And has he given you a million dollars?
John:Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town.
I:So why don't you just leave town now?
John:You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and he kicks the shit out of you.
I:Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?
John:My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money.
I:Haven't you talked to her since then?
John:Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it.
I:So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?
John:Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise; maybe you'll win a small lotto; maybe you'll just find a twenty dollar bill on the street.
I:What's that got to do with Hank?
John:Hank has certain connections.
I:I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game.
John:But it's a million dollars! Can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit out of you.
I:Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight from him...
Mary: No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank.
I:Then how do you kiss his ass?
John:Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on.
I:Who's Karl?
John:A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.
I:And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?
John:Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself.
To Be Continue... ...[/b] -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
...Continue from previous
John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on From the desk of Karl letterhead. There were eleven items listed:
1.Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2.Use alcohol in moderation.
3.Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4.Eat right.
5.Hank dictated this list himself.
6.The moon is made of green cheese.
7.Everything Hank says is right.
8.Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9.Don't drink.
10.Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11.Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.
I: This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead.
[b]Jonh :Hank didn't have any paper.
I:I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting.
Jonh: Of course, Hank dictated it.
I:I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?
Jonh :Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people.
I:I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?
Jonh : It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right.
I:How do you figure that?
Jonh :Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right'. That's good enough for me!
I:Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up.
Jonh:No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too.
I:But #9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with #2. And #6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong.
Jonh:There's no contradiction between 9 and 2; 9 just clarifies 2. As to 6, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure.
I:Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock...
Jonh:But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from outer space, so it could just as easily be green cheese.
I:I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese.
Jonh:Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!
I:We do?
Jonh:Of course we do, Item 5 says so.
I:You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'
Jonh:Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking.
I:But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?
Mary blushes.
Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong.
I:What if I don't have a bun?
Jonh:No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong.
I:No relish? No mustard?
i::Mary looks positively stricken.
John shouts: There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!
I:So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?
Mary (sticking her fingers in her ears): I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la.
That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that...
I:It's good! I eat it all the time.
Mary faints.
John (catching her): Well, if I'd known you were one of those, I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you, I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater.
With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off. [/b] -
why r u so sensitive ? u use the word 'attack ' which i think is way too strongOriginally posted by laoda99:Do u know what NO has done?
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=195586
U dun sprout niceties abt inter religious peace and then go attack Christianity in another thread.... -
[quote]Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
[b]Let me preface this by stating that I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely. Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
With this said, what is concerning is not specifically Christianity, but the oppressive promotion of the Christian agenda by some of its adherents. Though this motivates this counterargument, the basis is the assertion that it is not the onus of non-Christians to support their case against Christianity, but it is incumbent upon Christians, if they desire others to adhere to their dogma, to prove their case against non-Christianity. Thus far, in 2000 years, they have failed to do so. -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:here's a veri interesring article
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=63 -
The below are what ur fren try to profit for buddhism when Atheists are attacking Christianity in Chit Chat.....
Sorri just to pt some thing here...Originally posted by neutral_onliner:Originally posted by TheLoner:
[b]This topic is getting more n more interesting..
My Concept of God is..
IT created the whole universe, created diff religious to help diff types of people to obtain enlightenment(Go to heaven).
IT is only because of humans lack od Super high wisdom, that caused us to not fully understand what IT has let us known.
In buddism,they believe in cycle of life(reborn).I also believe tat.. cos in nature you can see how one things is being recycle(reborn) to another.
some will ask if any being is able to fully understand and obtain enlightenment what will happen? they become like IT or shd i say be One with IT.Humans are the only species tat has the highest advantage to reach IT,cos we r the one with the most IQ or wisdom.
The way to explain how he created the universe and with what..
IT is the universe, imagine we are a part of him....
it's like IT is a being containing the universe and we r in it. the only way we can escape being in IT is by become IT.
tat is why I use IT instead of HIM or HER...
[quote]IT created the whole universe, created diff religious to help diff types of people to obtain enlightenment(Go to heaven).except buddhism
pls read Uniqueness of buddhism
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=185088The way to explain how he created the universe and with what..
pls read Buddha REJECT the idea of the Creator God
IT is the universe, imagine we are a part of him....
it's like IT is a being containing the universe and we r in it. the only way we can escape being in IT is by become IT.
tat is why I use IT instead of HIM or HER
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=186248
also pls read Origin of the world vs No beginning No end
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=192663My Concept of God is..
regarding concept of heaven and hell.We buddhists hav a veri unique stand.Buddhist never try to introduce Buddhism by frightening people through hell-fire or enticing people by pointing to paradise. Their main idea is character building and mental training. Buddhists can practise their religion without aiming at heaven or without developing fear of hell.
IT created the whole universe, created diff religious to help diff types of people to obtain enlightenment(Go to heaven).
pls read http://www.ksridhammananda.com/pictures/PUBLI/THE%20BUDDHIST%20CONCEPT%20OF%20HEAVEN%20&%20HELL.pdf#search='buddhist%20concept%20of%20heaven%20and%20hell'
happy reading [/b][/quote] -
If u continue this way, I suggest u step down from modship at Buddhism Forum.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:why r u so sensitive ? u use the word 'attack ' which i think is way too strong
Do a check on ur threads and it is very provocative abt Theism, and u specifically attack Christianity in ur other threads.
Unethical evangelists, Buddha reject concept of creator god.....who are u trying to kid tat u want peace between Christians and Buddhists? -
see ... how overly sensitive u r.what i'm trying to bring across here is tat the debate bet u pple in tis case well...i shld say tat fruitlessly these discussions invariably come to a circular argument. On one side, one cannot prove that God exists and that accepting Christ as oneÂ’s savior is valid. On the other side, one cannot prove this is not true.Originally posted by laoda99:
Don u see it the debat is 'running in circle' IT A WASTE OF TIME -
If u continue this way, I suggest u step down from modship at Buddhism Forum.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:why r u so sensitive ? u use the word 'attack ' which i think is way too strong
Do a check on ur threads and it is very provocative abt Theism, and u specifically attack Christianity in ur other threads.
Unethical evangelists, Buddha reject concept of creator god.....who are u trying to kid tat u want peace between Christians and Buddhists? -
Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
Dun bluff. The two posts (abt kiss the ass one) which u posted in that thread as pasted above.....wants to ridicule Christianity
see ... how overly sensitive u r.what i'm trying to bring across here is tat the debate bet u pple in tis case well...i shld say tat fruitlessly these discussions invariably come to a [b]circular argument. On one side, one cannot prove that God exists and that accepting Christ as oneÂ’s savior is valid. On the other side, one cannot prove this is not true.
Don u see it the debat is 'running in circle' IT A WASTE OF TIME [/b]
Ur intent is obvious -
yes as said Let me preface this by stating that I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.Originally posted by laoda99:Originally posted by neutral_onliner:
[b]Let me preface this by stating that I do not categorically dispute Christianity, nor categorically disdain Christians. Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another. Nor can one lump together the behavior of all people who share that belief system.
I am concerned only with the conduct of the individual. Each individual has his or her own views and acts on them uniquely. Therefore, each individual, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation must be understood by his or her own views and actions, not the views and the actions of the group with which he or she is nominally or doctrinally affiliated.
With this said, what is concerning is not specifically Christianity, but the oppressive promotion of the Christian agenda by some of its adherents. Though this motivates this counterargument, the basis is the assertion that it is not the onus of non-Christians to support their case against Christianity, but it is incumbent upon Christians, if they desire others to adhere to their dogma, to prove their case against non-Christianity. Thus far, in 2000 years, they have failed to do so.
since[quote] Christianity is simply a belief system, and as such is not deserving of an emotional disposition toward it one way or another.
it pointless to dedate.Each to thier own -
Laoda, I have had a very similar debate with Vince69 in another thread about God's omnipotence. Although we fail to achieve an agreement over the issue (surprise!), it was nevertheless a very constructive debate.Originally posted by laoda99:Dun bluff. The two posts (abt kiss the ass one) which u posted in that thread as pasted above.....wants to ridicule Christianity
Ur intent is obvious
However in this case, you seem to have become too personal... I agree with NO's satirical analogy and you obviously, but that is ok. However, instead of making a case against his analysis, why are you attacking him personally? -
edit: double post
-
have u read the thread tat's closed?Originally posted by Kelthuzad:Laoda, I have had a very similar debate with Vince69 in another thread about God's omnipotence. Although we fail to achieve an agreement over the issue (surprise!), it was nevertheless a very constructive debate.
However in this case, you seem to have become too personal... I agree with NO's satirical analogy and you obviously, but that is ok. However, instead of making a case against his analysis, why are you attacking him personally? -
wat wrong wf tatOriginally posted by laoda99:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/showquestion.asp?faq=4&fldAuto=63
-
Are you referring to the one about evengelists vandalizing temples?Originally posted by laoda99:have u read the thread tat's closed? -
if this is the kind of mod buddhists want (the one tat attacks another faith, post provocative new threads in Buddhism), then May Buddha help u all.Originally posted by neutral_onliner:.
it pointless to dedate.Each to thier own