flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Why I don't like buddhism

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
I am apparently missing the spiritual message of this part of Buddha's wisdom:
http://mettanet.net/tipitaka/1Vinaya-Pitaka/6Patimokkha/bhikkhuni-patimokkha-e.html wrote:
62. If a bhikkhuni[nun] ordain a woman, giving suck, it's an offence for atonement.


No sex for 12 years, no bathing naked, no shaving of funny-area hairs... okay. But why the hell take the last fun from those poor nuns?
Post 02 Jan 2009, 08:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
But all religions that one is not a member of will appear to have arbitrary rules about controlling each followers behaviour. What is worse, IMO, is that the religious writings never give any reasons why, they merely proscribe and say "must follow this or be damned."

The situation is different when one does follow a religion, then everything will appear to make sense. Even though no reasons for why are given the follower will usually make up reasons that, for them, seem to fit what is proscribed.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 10:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
hum... maybe assemblism have similar rules, or at least, geekism...

don't eat one entire day.
don't walk in the street.
don't make love.
don't play with the wii.
don't go to the party.

many other limitations (rules) are possible in assemblism/geekism.

and many other religions exists, like capitalism, communism, banditism.
and all theses "religions" have their own masters/gods/rules.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 10:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
Marseille is utterly in need of revolution.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 13:22
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
the entire world is in need of revolution.
one proof: the earth rotate around the sun.

and gignol needs gnafron.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 13:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
Still, vid, I don't get it.
What is strange about the idea that children can not have children?
It is useless and in most cases harmful to start sexual life even at the age of 12.
I mean, what are we talking about? You almost scare me.

Just consider yuorself! Who in the age of 20.. aa, what is it, 22?.. will call pubic hair "the hair from the funny area"? I mean, what's so funny about pubis?
You simply prove that not even at your age it is relevant to have children.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 13:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
Was that some kind of a curse, eddy? Very Happy


P.S. I don't need anyone Very Happy I'm quite pleased with myself solely Laughing
Post 02 Jan 2009, 13:39
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
the hermine can procreate at any age.
it happens frequentlly that they are fucked the day of their birth.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 14:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
revolution wrote:
The situation is different when one does follow a religion, then everything will appear to make sense. Even though no reasons for why are given the follower will usually make up reasons that, for them, seem to fit what is proscribed.
Oh trust me, even though I am not a buddhist (in fact I don't classify myself in any religion anyway), the "why" doesn't seem to be there for some because they just don't even dig enough.

There are even "religious" (no supernatural thing) cults that say things like that are bad. You need to look at it differently, not as a casual thing, it's more than that. I know even atheists who at least have "morals". I hate it when people try to make out of sex some kind of video game like it's "nothing special".

I've described this thing so many times on other forums, on comments on articles etc... that I am literally tired of people saying this over and over. No I'm tired of explaining it -- guess what, after doing it for so long, i don't think anyone even changed, even though some acknowledged my explanation (or others' who think the same). I'm not talking about religion!

Trust me, these "rules" are less arbitrary than the choice of using binary for computers Razz

And these "rules" are not about religion but about moral decency who, surprise surprise, even some atheists have them. Maybe you should talk to one of them, cause they will explain it "in your language" without using religion which you say "is just arbitrary rules" (completely false, but then again, since you're not into theology (regardless of your belief in it), it's like looking at a long equation and saying that a certain number was "chosen arbitrary" when, in fact, it is the result of a long and tedious calculation which you can't understand, in this analogy).


Briefly: it is an "offense" because buddhism usually promotes enlightenment and doing stuff like that only makes you look with primitive desires (it also tries to eliminate such instinctual primitive desires, which it thinks are the 'cause of all suffering' so to speak: no desire --> no disappointment --> no suffering).

I'm starting to understand even the atheists who have such "moral" decency, or should I put it rather, rational decency. It's a sad day when a robot becomes more enlightened than us not having irrational desires.

Think of cleaning a street of shit (i.e the street becoming 'enlightened'), and then going and throwing random shit on it (albeit not as much as originally). Isn't that an offense to the street in question? Razz (well if it has will of course)


Also remember "manners"? Of course it's just an analogy, but they are so to speak, "in us". Not really arbitrary. And certainly not for cavemen. Thus they are not just "instincts" since cavemen lack them. It's probably called decency or evolution or enlightenment. Isn't going deep down an 'offense' to this very decency/evolution/enlightenment?

We're accelerating (as a species) down now, I hope someone throws a rope before it's too late.

Worst part is, we do it with our own wills even though we know (I assume people read this post, for example, so they "know") we CAN make a choice. but we DON'T WANT. That's worse than not being able to. Because refusing to do the 'decent' choice is far worse than not being able to.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Jan 2009, 15:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Borsuc: Even "moral decency" is not absolute, it is also arbitrary. Consider the eating of a dead body (human or non-human): some people think it is morally obscene to eat any flesh, some think it is obscene if it is pig or human flesh, some think it is only obscene if it is human flesh, some think it is never obscene. So who is right? Answer: There is no moral right or wrong in an absolute sense, it is all culturally learned. Our upbringing teaches us some things are not acceptable and other things are. And depending upon where and how we were brought up we learn different moral standards.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 15:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
But all religions that one is not a member of will appear to have arbitrary rules about controlling each followers behaviour. What is worse, IMO, is that the religious writings never give any reasons why, they merely proscribe and say "must follow this or be damned."

I tend to disagree here. Torah / Books of Moses / Old testament makes it very clear why. There is angry jealous God Yahweh who have "chosen" nation you belong to, and if you will not obey whatever he says, he will kill you and/or curse your offspring. Could there be any less arbitrary reasoning than "do it or I will kill you"? There almost isn't even space for subjectivism left. And it is not as different today as it may seem: christian morality is still based on divine blackmailing: beheave like I say or you will burn in hell forever!

Quote:
Still, vid, I don't get it.
What is strange about the idea that children can not have children?
It is useless and in most cases harmful to start sexual life even at the age of 12.
I mean, what are we talking about? You almost scare me.

My understanding is that it referred to 12 years spent as nun, after which you can have sex. If it referred to age I agree naturally, but laws based on ages seem to be mentioned elsewhere:
Quote:
71. If a bhikkhuni ordain a girl less than twenty years of age, it's an offence for atonement.
[...]
The precept for girls less than twelve years

74. If a bhikkhuni ordain a girl less than twelve years, it's an offence for atonement.

The precept for twelve year olds

75. If a bhikkhuni ordain a girl of twelve years without the consent of the Community of bhikkhunis it's an offence for atonement.

And btw, AFAIK it talked about sex, not about having children, those two things are kinda different.

And btw2, latest reality is that many better-looking girls around here start having sex at 14+-, so EVEN if I told what you understood I wouldn't be so far from sanity. Of course, I don't like this fact (I have grown myself in a bit more moralistic generation i quess), and I am against too much promiscuity.

Quote:
Just consider yuorself! Who in the age of 20.. aa, what is it, 22?.. will call pubic hair "the hair from the funny area"? I mean, what's so funny about pubis?

23 in 6 days Smile I couldn't remember the word "pubic" so I described it "in a funny way". I didn't mean "funny" as something you laugh at, but as something you have fun with - maybe this usage is wrong in english?

Quote:
You simply prove that not even at your age it is relevant to have children.

I absolutely agree. But if you intended to tell I am childish myself, I think you based that claim on misunderstanding of what I wrote. I just made a typical nun-joke based on what I percieve as buddhist laws against lesbianism, so what?

About morality of atheism: I think oldest definition of materialistic grounds for morality can be found in Epicurean philospohy (created some 100 years after supposed lifetime of Buddha btw), and basicly same argument is still used by materialists today. You can read one instance of that argument here: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html (this one bases argument on "theory of games", but it is in fact same argument as used by Epicures, just in more advanced vocabulary)
Post 02 Jan 2009, 15:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
And it is not as different today as it may seem: christian morality is still based on divine blackmailing: beheave like I say or you will burn in hell forever!
That's the old-fashioned viewpoint. If we are still talking about christianity:
Quote:
"No one with even a single sin can enter God's presence (Heaven). In that way, Heaven remains pure.

If you tell God over and over that you don't want Him, sooner or later, he will grant your desire, permanently. That is Hell. Simply put, when you Sin and are not sorry for it, don't recognize it as being "bad", then you don't want God, because that's what God is.

You must be sorry for your sins NOT because of fear, but because you have to realize and be truly sorry for them, that they are "bad".

* We are all sinners
* The penalty for sin is death
* Jesus Christ died on a cross and shed His blood to pay the death penalty for everyone who ever lived
* Jesus Christ will save you today if you just ask Him."
it's more like "you spoiled brat kid, I warn you of life's trouble outside, but if you truly want independence from me (parent), go ahead, I'm not gonna force you. Just don't expect me to help you (from Sin and devil) if you don't ask for it." -- that is more macho 'modern' so people who only understand that can get it Smile
But that makes it off topic since it's about buddhism Razz

vid wrote:
About morality of atheism: I think oldest definition of materialistic grounds for morality can be found in Epicurean philospohy (created some 100 years after supposed lifetime of Buddha btw), and basicly same argument is still used by materialists today. You can read one instance of that argument here: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html (this one bases argument on "theory of games", but it is in fact same argument as used by Epicures, just in more advanced vocabulary)
I still call it enlightenment (or decency) vs primitiveness (subduing to stupid instincts irrationally).

Sometimes I'm amazed we can understand Neural Nets or genetics when we subdue to instincts irrationally (no purpose -- most certainly, not for reproduction). When I think of a cyborg society I start to get disgusted by how we allow ourselves to be cavemen compared to them -- not because of intelligence, we have WELL the ability to CHOOSE otherwise. It's because of ignorance. We are a sorry lot indeed.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 02 Jan 2009, 15:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
vid wrote:
And it is not as different today as it may seem: christian morality is still based on divine blackmailing: beheave like I say or you will burn in hell forever!

That's the old-fashioned viewpoint. If we are still talking about [...] christianity: ... it's more like "you spoiled brat kid, I warn you of life's trouble outside, but if you truly want independence from me (parent), go ahead, I'm not gonna force you. Just don't expect me to help you (from Sin and devil) if you don't ask for it." -- that is more macho 'modern' so people who only understand that can get it

Effectively what's the difference? Oh, and who crated such world anyway? Wasn't it the creator-of-all, omnipotent mr. God? He creates world which dooms us to eternal punishment, and THEN he comes offering salvation if we do what he asks. Geee, thanks! Exactly the kind of free will i always wanted.

And still, what do you base your claim that he is just protecting us from Satan on? I think Christian scripture is quite clear it is god/jesus/logos who sends us to hell, not Satan.
Mathew 13 wrote:
The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers. [...] and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 14:10 wrote:
that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb


Quote:
I still call it enlightenment (or decency) vs primitiveness (subduing to stupid instincts irrationally).

Don't you think that morality is in part "hardcoded" into people, eg. something you could call a instinct? People (and animals generaly) with morality surely had evolutionary advantage over those without, allowing creation of swarms, societies, etc.
Post 02 Jan 2009, 22:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
MattBro



Joined: 08 Nov 2003
Posts: 37
MattBro
It boils down to this: Is God real or not? If He is does he care how we live our lives? If so do we care enough to pay attention? I believe his moral laws are built into the fabric of the universe. You break them at your peril. It maybe somewhat less subtle then the obvious effects of gravity, when driving your car off of the bridge, but it is no less real.

Some of the teachings of Jesus, for example are fairly self evident in their virtue. Things like, "love your neighbor as yourself". "Love your enemies", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Walk the extra mile... (when helping strangers)" etc. etc.
Post 03 Jan 2009, 07:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
It boils down to this: Is God real or not? If He is does he care how we live our lives?

I would say that if there is some god, who doesn't care about our world at all, and doesn't do any miracles and stuff, then for us it is exactly same as if he wouldn't exist at all.

Quote:
I believe his moral laws are built into the fabric of the universe. You break them at your peril. It maybe somewhat less subtle then the obvious effects of gravity, when driving your car off of the bridge, but it is no less real.

But that would mean there has to be some absolute morality, and that is VERY hard position to defend. Is it moral to kill someone? Is it moral to kill someone to save someone else? Or to kill one human to save 10 humans? Or to kill 49% of population to save 51% of population (kinda like Stalin did)?

Yes, some of teachings attributed to Jesus by canonic christian scripture are pretty good (but remember there are also other christian texts, that didn't later make it into bible, which attribute somewhat different sayings and deeds to Jesus). But still, teachings of Jesus are IMO inferior to other contemporary teachings in their virtue.
Post 03 Jan 2009, 11:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Effectively what's the difference? Oh, and who crated such world anyway? Wasn't it the creator-of-all, omnipotent mr. God? He creates world which dooms us to eternal punishment, and THEN he comes offering salvation if we do what he asks. Geee, thanks! Exactly the kind of free will i always wanted.
Well He gives you choices, otherwise it wouldn't be free. If you don't want His help, then you don't, He won't force you to NOT be "eternally doomed" or whatever (somehow, those phrases may sound cheesy to some Smile). He does give you a sign of it however and tell you what may await you if you are not cleansed of your sins (to do so you have to be HONEST).

I base it on my local priest (I asked him questions, and he wasn't "afraid" as some people would say, he is a philosophical man I would say), and searched the net. I find those metaphors with the "God as parent" in the Bible very likely (not sure if it's Old Testament, I'm not very good at distinguishing that in romanian and I'm not obsessed with it either Wink).

Of course I'm not saying God exists by saying that. I'm saying that you probably view it wrong, the religion I mean, not whether it exists or not.

vid wrote:
And still, what do you base your claim that he is just protecting us from Satan on? I think Christian scripture is quite clear it is god/jesus/logos who sends us to hell, not Satan.
Yes, probably He does since we didn't accept Him. That is, Heaven is for pure people (that is without SIN). If we don't modify our attitudes, then He sends us to Hell, not because He hates us, but because we do NOT want Him, and because we are NOT sorry for our SINS honestly, but because of fear, which simply doesn't cut it. (isn't that obvious, since otherwise we would surely "ask" for His help, you don't have to do it with words, just with THOUGHTS, but you have to be HONEST, that's the most important thing).

And it is NOT because he hates us that he sends us, but because we SIN. Everyone. Christians may as well sin MORE than an atheist! But there's this thing called being sorry for your sins. Repent and all that.

I think, an atheist that is HONESTLY sorry about them can go to Heaven. The "repent to a priest" just makes it a whole lot more easier to be HONESTLY sorry. Remember, HONESTY is everything. You know, "deep in your heart" Wink

I read it somewhere (a guy who did elaborate searching and stuff), but I can't find it. It was 5-6 years ago Sad


As for miracles and stuff, well you can watch a show called "Supernatural" (yes it's fantasy, but heck) see WHY we don't actually "believe" in ghosts, I mean the 'average' human. I know it's not real, it's just a fantasy horror series. But it does have that "wonder" factor Smile

Morality is not defined easily, you have to look into your "heart" (well you know what that means, not physically/literally). If it were easy or "obvious logic", Angels wouldn't be considered "supernatural" anymore Razz

Sin is part of us Smile

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 03 Jan 2009, 22:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Quote:
Well He gives you choices, otherwise it wouldn't be free. If you don't want His help, then you don't, He won't force you to NOT be "eternally doomed" or whatever (somehow, those phrases may sound cheesy to some ). He does give you a sign of it however and tell you what may await you if you are not cleansed of your sins (to do so you have to be HONEST).

Well, bible is clear on that. Those who practice homosexuality shall be killed. Do you think that is free will for homosexuals? Those who refuse to impregnate their dead brother's wife, shall be killed (like Onan was, because he pulled off his penis just before ejacuation when fucking his dead brother's wife). Was Onan really free to do what he did, even though god killed him because of it? And every single thing which is against god in bible, is blackmailed by threat of hell - because it is sin, and "sinners go to hell" - and bible is very clear about that. You need to be very picky to find few passages about forgiveness, but passages about strict punishing are abundant.

Your position may be logical if there was some kind god, but your position is not based on christian scriptures at all. It seems more like priest's wishful thinking to me.

Quote:
Of course I'm not saying God exists by saying that. I'm saying that you probably view it wrong, the religion I mean, not whether it exists or not.
Understood, I think after few discussions with you I understand you can stand up for (and defend) even hypothetical position you don't really hold with confidence.

Quote:
Yes, probably He does since we didn't accept Him. That is, Heaven is for pure people (that is without SIN).

If sin is defined as something against god's will, or not acting according to god's will (I hope you agree it is), then this still is divine blackmailing. In soviet regime, if you didn't act as regime wanted, or if you acted against regime, you would be punished with torment by compulsory work in terrible conditions for 3-25 years. In christianity, if you don't act as god wants, or if you act against what he wants, you are punished with *eternal* torment in lake of fire. Really, I don't see how the latter base for morality is something to look up to, any more than the first. You can call it "not forgiving", "not helping", etc., but the fact remains.

Quote:
If we don't modify our attitudes, then He sends us to Hell, not because He hates us, but because we do NOT want Him, and because we are NOT sorry for our SINS honestly, but because of fear, which simply doesn't cut it. (isn't that obvious, since otherwise we would surely "ask" for His help, you don't have to do it with words, just with THOUGHTS, but you have to be HONEST, that's the most important thing).
Can you find biblical passages which support claim that it is not important not to commit sin, but that it is more important to regret sins? As much as I have read from New Testament (Old Testament is way off this line of argumentation), it was always NOT to commit sin at all, little about regreting and forgiveness for commited sins.
Post 04 Jan 2009, 02:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4237
Location: 2018
edfed
theses fotos are picked from the only real hell:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

ImageNO HELL WITHOUT HELLITISM

and thoses picks come from the only real paradise:
Image
Image
Image
Image

then, i don't know why some people believe that HELL and PARADIZE are outside of our onw world.

Image
the world is just what we do with.
Post 04 Jan 2009, 12:35
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
vid wrote:
Well, bible is clear on that. Those who practice homosexuality shall be killed. Do you think that is free will for homosexuals? Those who refuse to impregnate their dead brother's wife, shall be killed (like Onan was, because he pulled off his penis just before ejacuation when fucking his dead brother's wife). Was Onan really free to do what he did, even though god killed him because of it? And every single thing which is against god in bible, is blackmailed by threat of hell - because it is sin, and "sinners go to hell" - and bible is very clear about that. You need to be very picky to find few passages about forgiveness, but passages about strict punishing are abundant.

Your position may be logical if there was some kind god, but your position is not based on christian scriptures at all. It seems more like priest's wishful thinking to me.
*sigh*

Like I said, Heaven is for pure people. The comparison with Soviet you made wasn't exactly on point (it did have a point though). Think that you have a town, full of let's say, "people without sins" (let's call them "light" people, it has NOTHING to do with skin color! it's just so it makes it easier to understand. They generate light, not just reflect it! nothing to do with skin color)

So this city of yours, is "good" and "peaceful" PRECISELY because that it ONLY has light people in it, pure people. If you brought in Osama Bin in it and starts blowing stuff up, you really think that it's a place that is auto-magically filled with happiness? No, it's filled like that because of it's ESSENCE, because of the people in it, the way they are, cleansed of sin.

God does love people, even sinners. He accepts their HONEST regrets about their sins, and he gives them chance to realize that. He doesn't "punish" sinners directly, or without giving them chances (the thoughts are important, not necessarily your actions, and honesty is above all, even if you're paralyzed and unable to go and repent, being honest is more important, but God can read your mind anyway, I think we agree on that?). He doesn't actually punish them in the traditional sense. He sends them to Hell -- or maybe let's them "up for grabs" somewhere where they belong. They don't belong in "Pure City" (aka Heaven). After all, they would not be any different there than they would be otherwise. Happiness in Heaven comes from its essence and the 'people' there, not just auto-magically no matter how you are you are happy? Hell is your reflection in the mirror -- that's you. You suffer because your sins "marked" you (and because of the Devil, which is also, a 'sinner').

You know? Kinda like getting drugs. You feel alright the first time. Someone warns you it's bad. You keep on getting, until let's say, it starts to be painful, really painful. Suppose there's a city with non-toxicated people. (i.e "pure" or heaven). Why should they allow you in? Will it help your situation? Furthermore, you have nothing to be in there! You would only just make a shame out of that place, for example. Go into a clinic or something. (sure with Hell it's a different case since it's mentally and NOT a body disorder, so no clinic can save you, it's your own decision about your sins, and not being honestly sorry about them etc)

Hell didn't even exist initially (well time isn't a factor "up there", so it's a rather vague phrase). Then again, if you are not allowed in "Pure City" since you don't meet the criteria for it (what would Osama Bin do in it? blow stuff up?), then I think it's obvious who will grab and where you will end -- there, where your sins REFLECT upon yourself, because then the "Hell City" has members with that attitude. So denying Hell (if you're honest about NOT being sorry for your sins) is like denying YOURSELF.


yes you may be right that I don't base it on scriptures directly -- since to tell you the truth, am kinda busy for that (and probably would require theology specialization of some sorts Confused). Yes I consulted priests, reasonable men in my case (the ones I talked to, of course there are bad, I can distinguish, and I met 'bad' ones, not worth talking to). I don't know, if it was some other kind of field (such as biology, which I'm crap at), unlike physics, I would base it on asking guys -- sure, they have to be reasonable, and I'll think for myself after that.



@edfed: hehe Razz
Well I do know at least how painful non-physical pain can be. They say physical pain is easy and completely zero in the "false" Hell (aka the one I was talking about), so the torment must be something few can imagine (I can, to a certain extent, because of some of my painful mental experiences, so to speak). Thankfully they were short, not eternal.

Also I think looking from an "eternal" perspectives, our lives are nothing. Even the Universe's age is insignificant. I don't know, maybe the Devil is far wiser and patient than man would ever be and tricks him, since he succumbs to impatient stuff. (man I mean)

If you think about it from external viewpoint, someone may ask for an immediate aid in exchange for 10 years of life, then he becomes "owned" (slave) by the respective 'business' partner.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 04 Jan 2009, 20:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Borsuc wrote:
That is, Heaven is for pure people (that is without SIN).

Hmm.
?
Borsuc wrote:
And it is NOT because he hates us that he sends us {to hell}, but because we SIN. Everyone.


Hmm.
?
so, in summary, We all sin, and we cannot attain heaven unless we have no sin, ergo, no one can attain Heaven.

Did I miss something, somewhere along the line?

How does this quote from Borsuc relate to the thread theme: Buddhism?
Post 05 Jan 2009, 13:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  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.

Powered by rwasa.