Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

SafeAsMilk · **#161** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 28, 2012 4:54 pm

monkeyboy wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
MrFungus420 wrote:

So Buddhism is the "truthful religion". Why are you a Muslim and not a Buddhist?

I never said that Buddhism is the truthful religion; yet Buddha believed in the truthful religion.

So what is the truthful religion then?

The Buddhism which is Not-Buddhism :levi:

SafeAsMilk · **#162** by **SafeAsMilk** » Feb 28, 2012 5:02 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Steve wrote:What Onyx8 and james1v said.

Seriously - what does Buddha have to do with it?

Thanks for explaining to me.

Hitchens has criticized Buddhists for their wrong doings against the teachings of Buddha. So the Buddhists are to be blamed not the Buddha.

Regards

Buddha is not a religion, Buddhism is. So what does Hitchens have to do with Buddha again?

CdesignProponentsist · **#163** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Feb 28, 2012 5:04 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
Steve wrote:What Onyx8 and james1v said.

Seriously - what does Buddha have to do with it?

Thanks for explaining to me.

Hitchens has criticized Buddhists for their wrong doings against the teachings of Buddha. So the Buddhists are to be blamed not the Buddha.

Regards

So you are attempting, by proxy, to detach those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion from the religious doctrine used to justify it.

The problem with this strategy is that those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion are usually interpreting the doctrine correctly. There isn't much in Buddhism that justifies this sort of behavior and any Buddhist acting in such a way is usually acting contrary to the doctrine.

Shrunk · **#164** by **Shrunk** » Feb 28, 2012 5:04 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha with his own example rescinding power and rule for enlightenment not once but twice proves that the truthful religion is not for amassing power or for exploitation of the people or for fleecing money from them. It is for a higher purpose.

Buddha refuted Christopher Hitchens assertion that religion is manmade; it is a boon from the Creator God.

BlackBart · **#165** by **BlackBart** » Feb 28, 2012 5:09 pm

CdesignProponentsist · **#166** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Feb 28, 2012 5:09 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha with his own example rescinding power and rule for enlightenment not once but twice proves that the truthful religion is not for amassing power or for exploitation of the people or for fleecing money from them. It is for a higher purpose.

Buddha refuted Christopher Hitchens assertion that religion is manmade; it is a boon from the Creator God.

How exactly does higher purpose = God?

Shrunk · **#167** by **Shrunk** » Feb 28, 2012 5:11 pm

Now that paarsurrey is inexplicably on a tear of starting threads about Buddha, I'm going to again suggest to the mods that they combine all these threads together. This is just another needless waste of effort that results from your discourteous behaviour, paarsurrey.

HughMcB · **#168** by **HughMcB** » Feb 28, 2012 5:20 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha's light shone for centuries in the world.

Which Buddha?

z8000783 · **#169** by **z8000783** » Feb 28, 2012 5:21 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha with his own example rescinding power and rule for enlightenment not once but twice proves that the truthful religion is not for amassing power or for exploitation of the people or for fleecing money from them. It is for a higher purpose.

Buddha refuted Christopher Hitchens assertion that religion is manmade; it is a boon from the Creator God.

So can you run through the steps of the proof please?

John

HughMcB · **#170** by **HughMcB** » Feb 28, 2012 5:22 pm

Some old dude supposedly shook off his riches and went to live a humble life.

Therefore religion is true.

Therefore God is real.

Therefore treat women like shit.

Matthew Shute · **#171** by **Matthew Shute** » Feb 28, 2012 5:30 pm

paarsurrey wrote:Buddha with his own example rescinding power and rule for enlightenment not once but twice proves that the truthful religion is not for amassing power or for exploitation of the people or for fleecing money from them. It is for a higher purpose.

This is a non sequitur. Even if the human founder of a religion makes up a religion with some noble intention in mind, the founder is still a human, and it is still a human founding the religion. Religion is man-made, regardless of the motives of the man in question. Buddha was a man. Muhammad was a man. These men made religions: Hitchen was right, of course.

james1v · **#172** by **james1v** » Feb 28, 2012 6:02 pm

The Buddhist statues at Bamyan? :think:

Scot Dutchy · **#173** by **Scot Dutchy** » Feb 28, 2012 6:12 pm

I just wish the mods as soon as paarsurry makes another new thread to just dump it into the pile of shit already on this forum.

CdesignProponentsist · **#174** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Feb 28, 2012 7:11 pm

james1v wrote:The Buddhist statues at Bamyan?

paarsurrey · **#175** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 28, 2012 8:47 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
Steve wrote:What Onyx8 and james1v said.

Seriously - what does Buddha have to do with it?

Thanks for explaining to me.

Hitchens has criticized Buddhists for their wrong doings against the teachings of Buddha. So the Buddhists are to be blamed not the Buddha.

Regards

So you are attempting, by proxy, to detach those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion from the religious doctrine used to justify it.

The problem with this strategy is that those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion are usually interpreting the doctrine correctly. There isn't much in Buddhism that justifies this sort of behavior and any Buddhist acting in such a way is usually acting contrary to the doctrine.

Yet it is the correct strategy; it is not a good strategy to blame innocent person like Buddha or Jesus for the wrongs the Buddhists or Christians have inflicted on the people against the teachings of Buddha and or Jesus.

Detachment or separation of the wrong-doers and the innocents is essentially to be made; otherwise it will be cruelty and injustice to those who are not present and have died and cannot come to defend themselves.

OlivierK · **#176** by **OlivierK** » Feb 28, 2012 9:09 pm

HughMcB wrote:Some old dude supposedly shook off his riches and went to live a humble life.

Therefore religion is true.

Therefore God is real.

Therefore treat women like shit.

Wonder if Buddha drank at this bar...

CdesignProponentsist · **#177** by **CdesignProponentsist** » Feb 28, 2012 9:23 pm

paarsurrey wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
Steve wrote:What Onyx8 and james1v said.

Seriously - what does Buddha have to do with it?

Thanks for explaining to me.

Hitchens has criticized Buddhists for their wrong doings against the teachings of Buddha. So the Buddhists are to be blamed not the Buddha.

Regards

So you are attempting, by proxy, to detach those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion from the religious doctrine used to justify it.

The problem with this strategy is that those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion are usually interpreting the doctrine correctly. There isn't much in Buddhism that justifies this sort of behavior and any Buddhist acting in such a way is usually acting contrary to the doctrine.

Yet it is the correct strategy; it is not a good strategy to blame innocent person like Buddha or Jesus for the wrongs the Buddhists or Christians have inflicted on the people against the teachings of Buddha and or Jesus.

Detachment or separation of the wrong-doers and the innocents is essentially to be made; otherwise it will be cruelty and injustice to those who are not present and have died and cannot come to defend themselves.

I don't think anyone who is dead can experience cruelty. Besides, as I said, Buddhist doctrine does not include genocide, slaves, child abuse and an almighty God who should be feared and obeyed. Judeo Christian and Islamic doctrine is founded on such inhumanities.

Buddhism also does not claim to speak for God. If you claim to speak for God, then anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and counter to God; a position that has been the justification of most of the genocidal wars of the past, many of them between Muslims and your friends the Christians and Jews.

ramseyoptom · **#178** by **ramseyoptom** » Feb 28, 2012 9:51 pm

The paarsurrey problem with the Guatama Buddha and Buddhism is, I suspect, that he expects the sutras to say what things are rather than as they do which is what things are not. It is also obvious that he has not realised that the Buddha did not believe in a "Creator God", gods are a minor part in the Buddhist canon and because of their nature are unable to reach nirvana unlike man.

The more he posts, on any subject, the more obvious how little he understands.

paarsurrey · **#179** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 28, 2012 9:53 pm

CdesignProponentsist wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:
CdesignProponentsist wrote:
paarsurrey wrote:

Thanks for explaining to me.

Hitchens has criticized Buddhists for their wrong doings against the teachings of Buddha. So the Buddhists are to be blamed not the Buddha.

Regards

So you are attempting, by proxy, to detach those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion from the religious doctrine used to justify it.

The problem with this strategy is that those who commit violent or evil acts in the name of religion are usually interpreting the doctrine correctly. There isn't much in Buddhism that justifies this sort of behavior and any Buddhist acting in such a way is usually acting contrary to the doctrine.

Yet it is the correct strategy; it is not a good strategy to blame innocent person like Buddha or Jesus for the wrongs the Buddhists or Christians have inflicted on the people against the teachings of Buddha and or Jesus.

Detachment or separation of the wrong-doers and the innocents is essentially to be made; otherwise it will be cruelty and injustice to those who are not present and have died and cannot come to defend themselves.

I don't think anyone who is dead can experience cruelty. Besides, as I said, Buddhist doctrine does not include genocide, slaves, child abuse and an almighty God who should be feared and obeyed. Judeo Christian and Islamic doctrine is founded on such inhumanities.

Buddhism also does not claim to speak for God. If you claim to speak for God, then anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and counter to God; a position that has been the justification of most of the genocidal wars of the past, many of them between Muslims and your friends the Christians and Jews.

I was speaking of Buddha and defending him; not the Buddhists or Buddhism.

paarsurrey · **#180** by **paarsurrey** » Feb 28, 2012 9:56 pm

ramseyoptom wrote:The paarsurrey problem with the Guatama Buddha and Buddhism is, I suspect, that he expects the sutras to say what things are rather than as they do which is what things are not. It is also obvious that he has not realised that the Buddha did not believe in a "Creator God", gods are a minor part in the Buddhist canon and because of their nature are unable to reach nirvana unlike man.

The more he posts, on any subject, the more obvious how little he understands.

I think I have clarified many a times that I am speaking about truthful Buddha and defending him; not the corrupted Buddhists or the Buddhism.

Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Ads by Google

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Ads by Google

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Ads by Google

Re: Buddha proved- the truthful Religion is not man-made

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Re: Buddha taught the middle or the moderate path

Re: Paarsurrey's thoughts on Buddhism

Who is online