Fucking Mormons.

[kahljorn]

Whoever said Buddhism doesnt have proof in history is obviously slightly retarded. He was a prince. Princes are important. Princes are in History. There are historical thingimajigs to prove he existed. Thingimajigs. There are also, I believe, stored in tibet shit that he wrote in, or spit in, or threw manure in, I'm not sure, but it wouldn't perprise me.

Buddha's real name was not buddha, go read your bookikins. Just like Jesus Christ's real name wasn't the Christ, they are titles. Sort of like Sir, or King, or FuckingjackassrabbitcapitolTminusafuckingZ

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Buddhism doesn't have a lot of proof that is based in history.

What?! By Zeus, Indra, and Baal, can you be any more stupid?

[Perndog]

Ok, everyone get out of flame mode and try to think for a second. You grab one sentence out of context and start to tear apart an argument that wasn't even made. Vince didn't say there's no proof that Buddhism existed in history, he told everyone he knew how it started. He was talking about how nothing has ever happened to prove that the Buddhists are correct in their philosophy, and I fully agree. It's just a bunch of mystical transcendental nonsense that aims to detach adherents from real life and waste all of their earthly potential through self-denial and a search for some abstract notion of enlightenment that never seemed to really benefit anyone anyway. Did you ever have a little bird or a squirrel come to you and make you wise? Are you enlightened, and if you are, were the years and years of utterly bland existence worth it?

[Immortal Goat]

Perndog, i respect your opinions, but I must say that not all people who follow Buudhist thought are people who go through self-denial. And that thing that you said about transcendentalism being crap, I take offense to that slightly. Transcendentalism is not about giving everything up, it is about thinking for yourself, which is something that Vinth has failed to learn to do. I am not in flame mode, I am stating a fact. He is a drone, created by a society that thrives on conservatism and conformity.

[Vibecrewangel]

Pern -

The phioso[hy does have "proof" in science in history and in many religions. Enlightenment is only one part of the philosophy.

[VinceZeb]

Goat, you have about as much chance to crack my beliefs as you do in cracking a safe at Fort Knox. I don't make the rules, God did. If God thinks that a belief and acknowledgement of His supreme power and existance is a requirement for entering a spirtitual paradise, are you going to tell him that he is too harsh?

You can live the good new-age magic crystal life all you want and be the best guy on the planet. If you don't believe in God and reject Him, you go to Hell. It is pretty much that simple. And if you don't like the rules, argue with the Supreme Being, not with me.

[Immortal Goat]

Those rules about not believing in God did NOT come from God, they came from the corrupt bishops of the middle ages who were trying to scare people into believing them and paying them money.

[Jeanette X]

He was talking about how nothing has ever happened to prove that the Buddhists are correct in their philosophy, and I fully agree.

Well shit, same goes for all the religions! Its fucking redudant!

It's just a bunch of mystical transcendental nonsense that aims to detach adherents from real life and waste all of their earthly potential through self-denial and a search for some abstract notion of enlightenment that never seemed to really benefit anyone anyway. Did you ever have a little bird or a squirrel come to you and make you wise? Are you enlightened, and if you are, were the years and years of utterly bland existence worth it?

You are as ignorant about Buddhism as Proto's grandma was about Islam. That is not what Buddhism is about, no more than the lifestyle of an austere Catholic monk is an example of the typical Christian.

[Perndog]

Goat: every religion or philosophical school is full of adherents that don't follow it accurately. But whether or not people other than monks do this in practice, Buddhist doctrine is about detachment, which means exactly that: you detach yourself from physical desires and feelings, because every bit of pleasure must be followed by suffering, and suffering is to be avoided. The "Buddhists" who don't practice this are either just calling themselves Buddhists because they think it's cool (I've seen former Lutherans who became "Buddhists" and lived their lives exactly the same way and just changed their church services a little bit) or they are picking and choosing which of the teachings they want to follow.

You don't need to transcend anything to think for yourself; I think countless atheists are enough evidence of that.

And Vibecrewangel, it's awfully weak to say "yes, it does have proof" and then not to offer any. I'm waiting.

[Jeanette X]

That is like saying that Christians never have any fun either because the Bible tells them to "be not of the world."

[Perndog]

If they were good Christians, that's exactly what they'd do. Centuries of Benedictines couldn't be wrong, could they? I personally follow to the letter every word in my Bible. If a religion is worth following, it's worth following all the way.

[Jeanette X]

So you hate your father and mother? You forsook them?

[Perndog]

*ahem*...I don't read the same bible you do....

[Vibecrewangel]

Pern - There are several threads about Buddhism and physics, about the history of Buddhism about Buddhism as a supplement to other religions....I'm not going to rehash my last year of posts

Hell, Vince may not agree with me, but even he will vouch for the fact that I have offered up many links and many sources on this subject.

[Vibecrewangel]

Pern-

Damn search function on the board is down.....I was looking for a few of my old links for you.

[Perndog]

Many thanks; I just started watching the Philosophy forum a couple of weeks ago, so I don't know about all the past discussions. And I think searching is gone indefinitely. Any other sources?

[AChimp]

I personally follow to the letter every word in my Bible.

*ahem!*

Leviticus

13:45 “As for the diseased person who has the infection, his garments must be torn, the hair of his head must be unbound, he must cover his mustache, and he must call out ‘Unclean! Unclean!’

13:46 The whole time he has the infection he will be continually unclean. He must live in isolation, and his place of residence must be outside the camp.

[Supafly345]

Originally Posted by Immortal Goat

Those rules about not believing in God did NOT come from God, they came from the corrupt bishops of the middle ages who were trying to scare people into believing them and paying them money.

I am kind of a christian myself (trying to decide on my beliefs and studying up on it still so I am not committing) and I can vouch for that. It wasn't neccessarily corrupt the bishops as it was the corrupt church. They were the law, and didn't want to lose that power.
I am not saying that you will go to the Kingdom of God if you do not have faith in him, but you won't be punished with an eternal damnation in a flaming pit. That was pieced together by Roman Catholics from talk about hell and talk about the lake of fire- which are two different things.
Hell is apperently where Satan is now. He is not on fire in horrible pain... yet. Hell is simply the absence of God (like how God is "everywhere" on earth? Well, he isn't in Hell). I guess life without God is supposed to be pretty shitty, so Hell isn't exactly like normal life.

NOTE: This is not all neccessarily true. This is just what I have come up with through my own studies. I may not be an all wise pastor who is an expert, but at least I didn't just believe what one told me their take on it was.

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by AChimp

*ahem!*

Leviticus

13:45 “As for the diseased person who has the infection, his garments must be torn, the hair of his head must be unbound, he must cover his mustache, and he must call out ‘Unclean! Unclean!’

13:46 The whole time he has the infection he will be continually unclean. He must live in isolation, and his place of residence must be outside the camp.

Originally Posted by I

*ahem*...I don't read the same bible you do....

Pay attention, Chimp.

[AChimp]

Oh, you read one of the Bibles that cut out all the old-fashioned stuff. I get it.

[Vibecrewangel]

Pern.....if I remember correctly when you first showed up I mentioned it was nice to see someone who followed the original teachings as oppsed to the screwed up version that most people associate wth the church.


The information on buddhism/physics is growing by leaps and bounds. Just google the two terms and you will come up with quite a few. Even the matrix movies are heavy into buddhist philosophy insofar as the question of existance is concerned.

Historical proof can be found throughout eastern history. Much the same as proof of events in Native American stories would be proved through the history of North America. Much of the problem with modern culture is that we forget that the further back we go the less certain historical events crossed different cultures. A flood in one area would never have been recorded in another.

I for one came to Buddhism in...well really.....a sort of appropriate way.....
I grew up with a mother who was deeply devout. In ever religion she came across.....Catholic, Jehova's witness, Satanist, Scientologist.....I don't want to go on. As I got older I looked into Shamanism, Witchcraft, Wicca (yes they are different) I was even an atheist for a bit. In the end I was left with a very personal mush of beliefs that encompassed everything that made sense from all the religions and traditions I had studied. It wasn't until recently....many years later....that I learned about Buddhism. At first I was wierded out that my view was almost idential to the Buddhist view. But eventually I came to understand that once I had allowed myself to (in a very buddhist way) let go of the negative aspects of all those other teachings I was left with the truth. And the truth is universal. When Buddhist talk of letting go to achive enlightenment it is meant to be on that level.

[Perndog]

I'm a little too tired to really get sarcasm right now, so I'm just assuming that was a joke because I don't think you're dumb enough not to understand by now. That's a compliment.

EDIT: This was directed at Chimp, by the way.

[kahljorn]

"Letting go" is about not giving a fuck anymore because you're too damned stupid to know the truth and when mommy smacked your mouth too hard it made you hate all women so your opinion is biased.
Also heighths scare you, and you can't go flying through the spiritual world if you're scared of heighths. It's a rule and shit, I have the official guidelines of interdimensional travel.

[VinceZeb]

My comments on Buddhism are pretty much based on a set of rules I have for all religions.

Let's take the the 5 most popular religions out there: If Judaism, on a historic level, was proven to be 100% correct, you couldn't argue with it. If there was a flood, the plagues, etc., then it would be true. You could argue the spiritual aspect all you want, but "realisticly" it could still happen.

Christanity could happen up until the crucifiction of Christ. When Christ was ressurected and those people saw him, then Christanity is proven correct. Historically and realistically, it would be the easiest to prove correct.

Islam could have a Mohammaed running around, but the angel part would be hard to prove based on "science".

Now, Hinduism? You couldn't prove that with science if you spent the rest of your days on it. There is no way in hell you could prove that someone was reincarnated into a cow or a junebug.

Take Buddhism now: If some guy went out right now who was a prep, saw a poor person and got shocked, climbed a tree, got "enlightened", saw some bums again and started preaching about how they shouldn't worry about being poor and just wait to enter the next life... you all would laugh your ass off at this clown right now. What makes it different because someone did it thousands of years ago? You can't prove enlightenment. You can't prove with any scientific or historical proof that he became enlightened.

You could prove the Jews recieved commandments and they had an ark and eyewitnesses could prove God spoke to them. If Christ rises from the dead, you ain't hatin on Jesus no more. You can't do that with Buddhism. It just cant happen.

[mburbank]

Why are you so hung up on 'proof', for your own, or any religion? Is your faith that weak?

Why are you so hung up on literal truth? Why do you think Jesus taught in parables? Do you know what parable is? Is your faith that shallow?

Why would you think the word of an eyewitness cconstitutes proof? Have you no understanding of science?

Why would you accept the biblical account of the resurection as fact? I've read that the last son of Krypton rose from the dead. It was reported by his own wife. Have you never heard of fiction?

Why would you laugh at someone who behaved as the Bhuda behaved? Have you no understanding of compassion?

Why do you care so little for the least of your bretheren? Do you not know that what you do unto them you do unto Him?

Why did you never learn to write? Was your schooling that poor? Have you no pride?

Why do you think anyone understands the points you attempt to make when your thoughts are so scattered, so poorly communicated? Do you understand them yourself? Why then can't you communicate them more clearly?

Why are you such a nasty little self important sack of crap? Is your faith so weak and shallow that your own scripture teaches you nothing of obedience than blind belief in a saviors existance and nothing more?

Sidartha Gautama's faith was not so weak or so shallow, and his behavior showed more christian charity than you are capable of imagining.