flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Buddism (possibly offencive, beware)

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I've read ahead in my world cultures book and noticed that it said Buddists don't worhip any gods. I'm curious if they beleive in them at all and just see them as equals or not. I know nothing of buddism other than that. Since this topic is so sensative (and because it's considered a religion, there will be lots of things on any research that i do that are not "part of the teachings" like the 72 virgins in islam), i want anyone who reads this topic to say what they *KNOW* as a fact about this religion. I'm curious on how close to secularism this religion actually is.
Post 06 Jan 2007, 05:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Simply put: Buddists are smarter than Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.. but not as smart as atheists anyway!
Post 06 Jan 2007, 07:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I asked for facts, not opinions.
Post 06 Jan 2007, 07:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
It's a fact that my opinion is that Maverick's facts are the correct opinion ..... well...., I think that's either correct or complete nonsense since the lines between fact, opinion and total bullshit, from the time you arrived at the fasm forum are so blurred, that I don't know any more..... ummmmm what was I talking about, anyway, I hope that all makes sense ...... of course that's only an opinion ..... I think Smile


Last edited by MichaelH on 06 Jan 2007, 12:28; edited 1 time in total
Post 06 Jan 2007, 08:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
...I know nothing ...I asked for facts, not opinions...
Absence of humility, writing in a tone of exaggerated self importance, is characteristic of someone who practices Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, NOT an adherent of Buddhism.
Siddhartha Gautama, son of a wealthy landowner, was born in the 6th century BCE, within a hundred years of the birth of Kong Zi, and about the same time as Lao Zi. Siddhartha lead a sheltered existence as a child, but followed the prevailing Hindu religion:
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita
As a young man, he set out to achieve enlightenment, traveling, fasting, and enduring a harsh lifestyle:
http://mcel.pacificu.edu/as/students/vb/History.HTM
Eventually, he discarded the lifestyles of BOTH the rich-and-famous, and the indigent, choosing instead, deliberately, a life of moderation and comfort, with neither misery nor great wealth as companions.
http://www.buddhist-temples.com/
As with all other religions, there are different branches of Buddhism, principally Theraveda (Thailand, Laos, Kampuchea, Myanmar, and SriLanka) and Mahayana (India, Nepal, Tibet, Mongolia, China, VietNam, Japan, Korea, TaiWan). As with Jesus of Nazareth, Socrates, and Alexander of Macedonia, no biography, or any other written text, authored by or about him during Siddhartha's lifetime is extant today. Following the glorious traditions of both Judaism and Christianity, from both of which their ideology and dogma originate, the Muslims BURNED to the ground, the main library of Buddhism, when they invaded India, one thousand years after Siddhartha's death.... Crying or Very sad
Kohlrak, your submissions to the forum remind me of this anecdote:
A somewhat elderly George Bernard Shaw is conversing with an attractive, young, lithesome, nubile, buxum babe--an artist or dancer or some comparable occupation, and she is explaining to Shaw, the advantages of their conceiving a child together:
"Think of it!" she said, "With your brains and my body, what a wonder it would be." Shaw thought for a moment and replied, "Yes, my dear, but what if the child inherited my body and your brains?"
Razz
Post 06 Jan 2007, 11:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MichaelH



Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 402
MichaelH
Oh dear, I think I have to eat my words about Americans and humour, that is terrific sarcastic wit Tom Smile


Last edited by MichaelH on 06 Jan 2007, 13:06; edited 1 time in total
Post 06 Jan 2007, 13:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Wasn't it Einstein (talking to Marylin Monroe) who said that last phrase? Razz
Post 06 Jan 2007, 13:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
tom tobias wrote:
kohlrak wrote:
...I know nothing ...I asked for facts, not opinions...
Absence of humility, writing in a tone of exaggerated self importance, is characteristic of someone who practices Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, NOT an adherent of Buddhism.


To be fair, if even Jesus' existence is disputed, how much more so a guy from 600+ years before!

And humility (as I weakly understand it) is accepting the truth about ourselves, the opposite of pride (which is equivalent to arrogance, scorning others as beneath yourself). IIRC, humility is a virtue.

Jesus, as God, is defined as very humble because he was born into humble surroundings (in a manger with animals) and didn't make much of a big fuss over himself.

P.S. Pope John Paul I (Albino Luciani, the guy from 1978 before Karol Wojtyla) had the motto "Humilitas".

EDIT: Okay, this post didn't really have anything to do with Buddhism. I have been reticent about my understand because I don't know much. BUT, I'll say this: the so-called Buddha called himself the "savior of the world" and yet, so did Jesus. Buddha ("enlightened one") just stumbled upon his understanding while Jesus claims prior existence and knowledge (as the Son of God, the Word made flesh). Some people even erroneously claim that Jesus was a Buddha or that there are more Christs (Messiahs) than just Jesus (wrong!). Buddhism says you can save yourself. Christianity says you only need Jesus (who is the living God) to save you. Buddhism denies a permanent Hell or Heaven, and suggests that you get to live over and over again while Christianity says one life is all you need/get. Concerning God, I don't think Buddhism is very clear. However, Christianity (like Judaism and Islam, supposedly) basically says there is only one God: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To get more specific (e.g., Trinity -- three persons, one God: God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit), it depends on what branch of these you listen to.

EDIT: P.S. Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic. But, I feel it's important to clarify.
Post 06 Jan 2007, 18:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
EDIT: P.S. Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic. But, I feel it's important to clarify.


It's better than some of the other replies. That was actually what i was looking for. So i question now, if there are any characteristics of religion that buddhism has that atheism does not, aside from having a specific founder and the beleif in reincarnation.
Post 06 Jan 2007, 20:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
asmfan



Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 392
Location: Russian
asmfan

_________________
Any offers?
Post 06 Jan 2007, 20:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Howdy Kohlrak,
I may be wrong, but I don't think Buddhism believes in reincarnation the way you think, but more in the metempsychosis way, and perhaps not even in a literal way (yes, I used to be a Buddhist, now I found the final religion, i.e. NONE Smile ).
Post 07 Jan 2007, 12:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7734
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
An interesting thread about Buddhism on a "more dedicated" Wink forum:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19052
Post 07 Jan 2007, 15:18
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
MazeGen



Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Posts: 977
Location: Czechoslovakia
MazeGen
kohlrak wrote:
I've read ahead in my world cultures book and noticed that it said Buddists don't worhip any gods. I'm curious if they beleive in them at all and just see them as equals or not. I know nothing of buddism other than that. Since this topic is so sensative (and because it's considered a religion, there will be lots of things on any research that i do that are not "part of the teachings" like the 72 virgins in islam), i want anyone who reads this topic to say what they *KNOW* as a fact about this religion. I'm curious on how close to secularism this religion actually is.

I got a bit familiar with Buddhism and meet some original Buddhist in North India so I try to answer this (don't forget my poor english).

In theory, Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) realized that there is no objective god, because he realized that the god is the very "I" in any being and which is different from the ego. In other words, the god is the subject, not the object. From whence it follows that there is no god which can be worshiped.

In fact, lay Tibetan buddhists worship many various incarnations of Buddha (Buddhist men as important as the original Buddha) and they worship also the current Dalailama. I assume it is the same with Chinese Buddhists, Thailand's Buddhists or Japanes Buddhists etc.

For instance, when we told to some Buddhist women that we saw (more or less coincidentally) the Dalailama in Dharamsala, they said we are really blesses because of that Smile

I'm sure there are some Monasteries (buddhist temples) or even Tibetan settlements in the US so you can ask personally Wink
Post 07 Jan 2007, 17:28
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8966
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Post 07 Jan 2007, 17:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
I thank you for these resources. That one post from the other boards is an interesting read...
Post 08 Jan 2007, 04:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
sleepsleep wrote:

introduction to islam
http://www.mideasti.org/indepth/islam/introislam.htm

The Middle East Institute wrote:

The Middle East region is the cradle of all the ancient civilizations.

I doubt that the Chinese, Hindu, Igbo, Mayans, or Eskimos would agree with this statement.
The Middle East Institute wrote:

In the first century BC the Greeks and then the Romans through conquest established their presence in the region.

What about Alexander of Macedonia, two hundred years earlier? What about the Persians 500 years earlier?
The Middle East Institute wrote:
Most of the inhabitants, however, were pagans.

Is this intended as a pejorative statement? What is the difference between having faith in a non-existent, supernatural, anthropomorphic figure, versus a rock (Sphinx), or something REAL, like the sun (Zoroastrianism)? All religions share the common tradition of belief in something that must be accepted as valid using faith, rather than reason. They are therefore, by definition, irrational, and people who accept the teachings of ANY religion are delusional.
Delusion: fixed, false belief.
The Middle East Institute wrote:

Muhammad ... was born [...in...] the year 571 ...[He died] in 632 AD. ...The history of [Mohammed], his deeds and sayings, were at first memorized by his companions and passed on as oral record. They were first comprehensively recorded by the historian Ishaq ibn Yasar (ca. 768).

So, some kid like Kohlrak, passed on to his descendants ideas about Mohammed through verbal communication, and after a few generations of this oral transmission, one hundred and thirty years after Mohammed's death, a scholar came along and jotted down these oral fantasies, and voila, a historical document emerges! No wonder the Muslims forbid anyone to draw his picture, no one knows anything about the guy, how would it be possible to accurately portray his likeness on a sheet of paper, or a video screen?
The Middle East Institute wrote:
Islam is the last and most all- encompassing message of God.
What, he (She?) became fatigued with the chore of creating religions? What about the Mormons?
http://www.lds.org/
notice, please, the URL above. What does lds signify????
"Latter day saints". Hmm. What does that mean? It means, that people, NOT GOD, are still creating chaos, as they have been doing for several thousand years!
What happened in this rambling, nonsensical history to an explanation of the Buddhists, the ostensible subject of this thread? Perhaps Muslims regard them as mere pagans??? This could explain why the Muslims burned their library. After all, who would want to read fiction, anyway, right??....
The Middle East Institute wrote:

Scientific theories that hive (sic, "have") evolved about the creation highlight the unity of the universe.
Really? I would write that scientific DATA, i.e. EVIDENCE, not theories, have refuted all religious propaganda, and that scientific THEORIES have as yet NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION for the "unity of the universe". As far as I am aware, the universe remains ill defined in scope, in both temporal and physical dimensions. Even prime numbers fall into the category of the unknown and mysterious, awaiting definitive elaboration....
Smile
Post 08 Jan 2007, 10:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
kohlrak wrote:
That one post from the other boards is an interesting read

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19052
mahasattva wrote:
He [i.e. Siddhartha] was the perfect scientist in the field of life. He was the perfect psychologist who was able to analyse the real nature of the mind - so much so that His teaching was acclaimed as the only scientific religion.
oops. "the only scientific religion". Hmm. The technical word for this is oxymoron (e.g. "make haste, slowly".) Religion and science are completely antithetical as this quote from the same author shows:
mahasattva wrote:

A man failing to observe religious principles becomes a danger to society.
That's me. I am a danger to society. Not those Jews, like nobel prize winning Biologist George Wald, who advocated use of Napalm against the Palestinians, claiming that they were "subhuman". Not those fine, "Christian", Europeans who slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of North America ostensibly because they were "pagans", but actually because they, like the Palestinians, had some very lovely land in their possession.
Paraphrasing Descartes, I fail to observe religious beliefs, therefore I am a danger to society.
Smile
Post 08 Jan 2007, 11:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kohlrak



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1421
Location: Uncle Sam's Pad
kohlrak
Quote:
All religions share the common tradition of belief in something that must be accepted as valid using faith, rather than reason. They are therefore, by definition, irrational, and people who accept the teachings of ANY religion are delusional.


Considering that none of the religions that i know of have been ever proven false, one must have faith to not beleive in any religion as well. I guess that would make athiests delusional as well. I guess Agnostics are the only sane people in your book?

Quote:
What happened in this rambling, nonsensical history to an explanation of the Buddhists, the ostensible subject of this thread? Perhaps Muslims regard them as mere pagans??? This could explain why the Muslims burned their library. After all, who would want to read fiction, anyway, right??....


You're not doing much good by taking this off topic.

Quote:
Really? I would write that scientific DATA, i.e. EVIDENCE, not theories, have refuted all religious propaganda, and that scientific THEORIES have as yet NO CREDIBLE EXPLANATION for the "unity of the universe". As far as I am aware, the universe remains ill defined in scope, in both temporal and physical dimensions. Even prime numbers fall into the category of the unknown and mysterious, awaiting definitive elaboration....


Just remember that evidence isn't proof. There is also evidence that "religious propoganda" is true, otherwise people wouldn't beleive it. The problem (that i see) with science is that people are eager to base theories on theories that havn't been proven yet, and that science assumes that we can directly test everything. If there is a spiritual relm, then science is flawed for there is no way we can test anything within it.

Quote:
Religion and science are completely antithetical


No, atheism and religion are completely antithetical. There's a difference between science and atheism. Sience is secular, even rejecting of atheism. The atheism and religion come in when the people who investigate things already have an opinion of what something is before they investigate it, which is rather common if you havn't heard. Oh, and before you say it, Secularism and Atheism are 2 different things, the line between them is fine, but they are 2 different things. Technically, one could argue that you have to be agnostic to be a secularist, since atheism involves religion, while agnostics seemingly just don't care.

Quote:
Paraphrasing Descartes, I fail to observe religious beliefs, therefore I am a danger to society


People who don't observe a religon aren't a danger to society, but pose a potential danger to moral, which is part of society. I find it cute how there are many athiests that chop down any religion and call it an excuse to fight.

But you know what this all is? You hijacking my thread to propogandate your views on religion. If you don't have the self control to hold your propoganda in, then don't post in my threads. I like to keep my threads free of bias for or against any religion, but with people like you shoving opinionated propoganda into my threads, it's hard to stay with my goal. If you have a problem with what was posted there, you go ahead and register on their boards and reply to it and debate it with them. This thread served it's purpose, let it die, tom.
Post 08 Jan 2007, 12:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
tom tobias wrote:
That's me. I am a danger to society. Not those Jews, like nobel prize winning Biologist George Wald, who advocated use of Napalm against the Palestinians, claiming that they were "subhuman". Not those fine, "Christian", Europeans who slaughtered the indigenous inhabitants of North America ostensibly because they were "pagans", but actually because they, like the Palestinians, had some very lovely land in their possession.
Paraphrasing Descartes, I fail to observe religious beliefs, therefore I am a danger to society.
Smile

Sometimes I am terrified by the idea that oil may be hiding under my house. Can you imagine? I would suddenly became "BAD" and Bush would move his armada to free my neighbours. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
And, expecially, kolhrak would believe that shit. Wink

Fssssssssst! Don't be offended, kolhrak, I am kidding (i.e. I have no oil Razz ). Wink

_________________
Greets,
Fabio
Post 09 Jan 2007, 10:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Maverick: that's not what you told me last night - you charlatan!

Wink Wink Wink
Post 09 Jan 2007, 10:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.