|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on May 14, 2010 9:59:30 GMT -5
Did you even read the article about war? No where in there did it suggest that Zen Buddhists have actually went to war. The closest thing there is suggesting that Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's war of aggression but they never actually partook in any kind of violence. As for your post about Buddhism being a money making scheme, there are many Buddhists who partake in the religion in their own time which is easily attained. Buddhists do believe in something contrary to what you have said. They believe in attaining a state of enlightenment and clear thought through meditation. The Buddha was more of a teacher giving his wisdom to his followers. He taught people about Nirvana and clearing ones mind in order to achieve enlightenment. Zen Buddhists don't have to pay any money into a church in order to practice their religion.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on May 14, 2010 13:24:17 GMT -5
And doesn't the Catholic church also take donations to build churches, repair churches, etc? Last time I went to church they sure did take in money.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on May 14, 2010 13:53:47 GMT -5
And doesn't the Catholic church also take donations to build churches, repair churches, etc? Last time I went to church they sure did take in money. A lot of religions do it. Everything needs money.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on May 14, 2010 14:05:50 GMT -5
And doesn't the Catholic church also take donations to build churches, repair churches, etc? Last time I went to church they sure did take in money. A lot of religions do it. Everything needs money. Exactly so I don't know why he's saying they are just a money making operation when it's clearly going towards building a place of worship.
|
|
|
Post by ICW on May 14, 2010 15:54:27 GMT -5
I am a Catholic, though I haven't been very religious lately. Hopefully, that changes.
|
|
|
Post by ztj_wwf on May 14, 2010 16:45:07 GMT -5
Well atleast some of us want to go to Heaven, and not burn in hell. just sayin. But if Heaven doesn't even exist (which is very likely) your kinda wasting your life trying.IMO I think death is exactly like before you were born. I think the heaven/hell thing comes from a fear of dying. So we should just go out and start murdering and being bad people, it's not like it's work getting into Heaven, all you need to do is be a good human being, which should and is by most being done already, with or without religion.
|
|
|
Post by bane on May 14, 2010 17:25:49 GMT -5
Did you even read the article about war? No where in there did it suggest that Zen Buddhists have actually went to war. The closest thing there is suggesting that Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's war of aggression but they never actually partook in any kind of violence. As for your post about Buddhism being a money making scheme, there are many Buddhists who partake in the religion in their own time which is easily attained. Buddhists do believe in something contrary to what you have said. They believe in attaining a state of enlightenment and clear thought through meditation. The Buddha was more of a teacher giving his wisdom to his followers. He taught people about Nirvana and clearing ones mind in order to achieve enlightenment. Zen Buddhists don't have to pay any money into a church in order to practice their religion. At the bottom of the page it says 50,000 lives were lost in a Buddhist war. And those donation prices...We are not talking about a little $5 here. Those donations are HUGE profits. AngelBeast, I am not Catholic. They are a money making operation too.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on May 14, 2010 19:12:08 GMT -5
Did you even read the article about war? No where in there did it suggest that Zen Buddhists have actually went to war. The closest thing there is suggesting that Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's war of aggression but they never actually partook in any kind of violence. As for your post about Buddhism being a money making scheme, there are many Buddhists who partake in the religion in their own time which is easily attained. Buddhists do believe in something contrary to what you have said. They believe in attaining a state of enlightenment and clear thought through meditation. The Buddha was more of a teacher giving his wisdom to his followers. He taught people about Nirvana and clearing ones mind in order to achieve enlightenment. Zen Buddhists don't have to pay any money into a church in order to practice their religion. At the bottom of the page it says 50,000 lives were lost in a Buddhist war. And those donation prices...We are not talking about a little $5 here. Those donations are HUGE profits. AngelBeast, I am not Catholic. They are a money making operation too. 50,000 lives were lost in a buddhist war... doesn't mean Zen Buddhists took part in it. Those donation prices are probably not from one person but rather the total amount they need from members for each of those. It's not profits if it's used for something within the church. JW's are consistently asking for donations as well. To suggest Jehovah's Witnesses don't ask for money from others is being extremely blinded.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Beast on May 14, 2010 20:06:18 GMT -5
Did you even read the article about war? No where in there did it suggest that Zen Buddhists have actually went to war. The closest thing there is suggesting that Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's war of aggression but they never actually partook in any kind of violence. As for your post about Buddhism being a money making scheme, there are many Buddhists who partake in the religion in their own time which is easily attained. Buddhists do believe in something contrary to what you have said. They believe in attaining a state of enlightenment and clear thought through meditation. The Buddha was more of a teacher giving his wisdom to his followers. He taught people about Nirvana and clearing ones mind in order to achieve enlightenment. Zen Buddhists don't have to pay any money into a church in order to practice their religion. At the bottom of the page it says 50,000 lives were lost in a Buddhist war. And those donation prices...We are not talking about a little $5 here. Those donations are HUGE profits. AngelBeast, I am not Catholic. They are a money making operation too. You do realize thats the goal they are trying to reach for those specific items not what people need to send.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 14, 2010 20:09:27 GMT -5
I just read that JW's teach against blood transfusions. That seems really jacked up to me.
|
|
|
Post by bane on May 14, 2010 20:33:28 GMT -5
I just read that JW's teach against blood transfusions. That seems really jacked up to me. Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’ Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.) Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood? In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 14, 2010 21:01:57 GMT -5
I just read that JW's teach against blood transfusions. That seems really jacked up to me. Christians are commanded to ‘abstain from blood’ Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.) Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood? In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins? You are fond of just cutting and pasting aren't you? Is this what you do if someone you meet on the street starts asking you questions? It gives the impression that you have no idea why you believe what you do and you just google and cut/paste the first thing that pops up. I know that's not the case, but it looks that way. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818152001AAESrKFAnyway, I'll start out with the simple fact that basing an entire doctrine on one scripture and one scripture only seems a little dangerous to me. I can't think of any other teachings that are based on just one scripture alone with no other scriptures supporting it. Second of all, I'll point out that blood transfusions weren't even possible in Biblical times. It seems unlikely that the apostles would get together and decide to specifically ban a practice that wasn't even technically possible at the time or even thought of. Third of all, when you look at the context of the scripture it's dealing with idolatrous practices of the day like sacrificing animals to idols or strangling them to keep more blood in the meat. The first century Christian reading the letters sent out here would've taken from it that they were not to indulge in practices associated with idolatry. That is consistent with other scriptures that teach separation from the world. Furthermore, eating implies taking in nourishment. Getting a blood transfusion doesn't involve taking in nourishment at all. The alcohol analogy doesn't really hold because eating blood never enters the bloodstream as blood, nor is injected blood passed through the digestive tract at all.
|
|
Dexter Morgan
Main Eventer
Joined on: Jul 8, 2008 15:30:18 GMT -5
Posts: 3,130
|
Post by Dexter Morgan on May 15, 2010 12:34:26 GMT -5
Agnostic
|
|
|
Post by Death Bear on May 15, 2010 12:44:22 GMT -5
I'll say this right off the top: I've only read page 1 of this thread, because I'm not gonna try to catch up on 13 pages. With that out of the way...
Anyone who says their "religion" is Atheism is a bit of an idiot. Atheism is not a religion. It is the expressed LACK of religion. One is not a follower of Atheism, or a believer in Atheism. You become an atheist when you DON'T follow or believe in anything.
If you ask someone what their favorite song is and they respond that they don't listen to music, you wouldn't say their favorite song is "Silence".
It annoys me even more when other religious sects refer to atheism as if it's a following or even an organized group, or even worse, devil worshippers. Like seriously, make an effort to understand something before you try to speak on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 15, 2010 13:25:49 GMT -5
One makes a decision to believe in God at some point in life. That decision is based on faith. One can also make a decision to not believe in God. That decision is also based on faith. It takes as much faith to prove that there is no God as it takes to believe there is one. There is just no hard evidence on either side.
|
|
|
Post by arnanderson on May 17, 2010 14:05:38 GMT -5
No, you stated that. Sure, us as humans could definitely make errors when transcribing the Bible. But you forget we are talking about people who talked and walked with God. Myself, and I'm sure Bane will agree as well, that God would not allow something to be inaccurately transcribed. So why would God allow text in the Bible that goes against facts like that of the Sun revolving around the Earth? Which proves that what I have to say is fact, and that God was not with them when they wrote the Bible as there would be no inaccuracies in the Bible. Not to mention that there were people who were writting the Bible who were not even there when those things happend. I've contributed a lot more then you have as I have brought actual science, and history to this thread. I think religion is good for most people, as it can and does help people become a better person but people also need to open their minds up to the fact that not everything is possibly accurate from a science, and a historial view point. The problem occurs in this world when everyone lives on the word of their religon of choice which has caused quite a lot of wars, with innocent humans being murdered in the name of their religon, or ostracised others for things that they themselves do not choose to believe. It wasn't an argument until some ignorant bunghole had to come it here and mouth off. Up until today it's actually been a very nice discussion/debate. Unlike most 'religion' threads on here. Congrations for all the time you spent reading the Bible, and interpeting it while missing the complete point of it, as well as the foundation of all religions which is to treat others with respect, and how you would want to be treated. Calling someone ignorant for bringing up a valid argument with facts to back them up is not ignorant nor is calling someone a name like a bunghole because they choose not to believe something someone else has to say what is taught by God or Gods, or in any religious book. It wants to teach you to be a good person, and treat others with respect.
|
|
The Canadian Zebra
Main Eventer
WF 15+ Year Member
Formerly: T-Swift, Flyleaf, Ian White's Mustache, and Strike Force
Joined on: Apr 17, 2004 12:00:07 GMT -5
Posts: 2,862
|
Post by The Canadian Zebra on May 17, 2010 14:28:18 GMT -5
Congrations for all the time you spent reading the Bible, and interpeting it while missing the complete point of it, as well as the foundation of all religions which is to treat others with respect, and how you would want to be treated. Calling someone ignorant for bringing up a valid argument with facts to back them up is not ignorant nor is calling someone a name like a bunghole because they choose not to believe something someone else has to say what is taught by God or Gods, or in any religious book. It wants to teach you to be a good person, and treat others with respect. To say that the whole purpose of The Bible is to teach people to treat people with respect, and to treat others the way you want to be treated is idiotic. Yes, that is an underlying message, but to say that the whole purpose of it is ridiculous. Sure Jesus says that the second most important commandment is to Love Thy Neighbor, second to only Putting God first, above anything else. That being said, I've read most of this thread, and Stinger Splash brings up a point that It was a good debate, as well Dr.Hulk brings up valid points, with there being no 'Hard Evidence' to prove, nor disprove. However he also says it's about faith, which in The Bible Faith is described as "Being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1) I've also made the decisions Hulk talks about, I was born into a Catholic home, and when stuff started turning for the worst I got down on myself, and God, thinking "if there is God, why is this happening" I went through the whole anti-God phase that a lot of people go through. But eventually I realized that being Anti-God for no reason was foolish. So I began asking questions, which has led me to where I am today, which is a firm believer that God is real, and he helps me through rough times, and see's me through the best times.
|
|
|
Post by arnanderson on May 17, 2010 14:40:40 GMT -5
To say that the whole purpose of The Bible is to teach people to treat people with respect, and to treat others the way you want to be treated is idiotic. Yes, that is an underlying message, but to say that the whole purpose of it is ridiculous. Sure Jesus says that the second most important commandment is to Love Thy Neighbor, second to only Putting God first, above anything else. It is not idiotic. How do you think you get to Heaven in a Christian religion? To believe in God, and to forgive other people. What good is it to believe in God but to act like a terrible person the others times? What did Jesus do? He helped people, and wanted people to live a better life, a pure life free of sin. If the choice came down to missing Church, or to help your neighbor, a stranger, or someone you know which one would you think God would want you to do? Do you think he actually would want you to choose him over helping? Because that simply is not true. That is find if you choose to have a faith, but you shouldn't throw away science, and history that can disprove certain things. But people shouldn't come down and judge others if they choose to not believe, or to believe in God. Because the only thing that matters is if they are a good person.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle - legendkilla2k9 on May 17, 2010 16:58:18 GMT -5
Protestant.
|
|
|
Post by Wato Stan Account on May 17, 2010 17:14:35 GMT -5
SubGenius
|
|