Religion, what's the point?

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Sri Lanka is the leading Buddhist country in the world. The sinhalese are one of the nicest people in the world.
Ask the Tamika and they will tell you they are a genocidal bunch of maniacs. Is it correct? Of course not.
Ask the Rohingya about the Burmese. Is not Buddhism or Islam or Jews or Christians that make people or countries violent. It's the people of those countries. Jesus did not bring about the Inquisition. He is not responsible for it. Moses did not bring the occupation of the Palestinians. Mohammed did not bring about the rise of ISIS. Buddha did not bring the genocide in Myanmar.
It's the people who are responsible for those things brought these things.

As for Buhari, there are many Muslim scholars and writers who have written about what is wrong with Buhari
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
Sri Lanka is the leading Buddhist country in the world. The sinhalese are one of the nicest people in the world.
Ask the Tamika and they will tell you they are a genocidal bunch of maniacs. Is it correct? Of course not.
Ask the Rohingya about the Burmese. Is not Buddhism or Islam or Jews or Christians that make people or countries violent. It's the people of those countries. Jesus did not bring about the Inquisition. He is not responsible for it. Moses did not bring the occupation of the Palestinians. Mohammed did not bring about the rise of ISIS. Buddha did not bring the genocide in Myanmar.
It's the people who are responsible for those things brought these things.

As for Buhari, there are many Muslim scholars and writers who have written about what is wrong with Buhari
The difference is that Jesus and Buddha were pacifists who practiced what they taught. Sri Lanka is not the leading buddhist country in the world either. But any buddhist who commits violence has breached the 5 precepts. Muhammed and his companions who he called the best muslims were directly reponsible for what we would call crimes against humanity and he called for all muslims to follow in his example. No he wasn't all bad, I quite admired his tolerance in his early days while he was mocked and mistreated in Mecca although he did grab his bully by the throat and said "Woe you! Wou you! By Allah you will be slaughtered!". Which happened later in their first formal battle.

When he started feeling comfortable in his military power he also sent this remarkably peacefull letter to the King of Oman and his brother.

"In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, from muhammed bin. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. I invite both of you to the call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allah has sent me as a prophet to all His creation in order that I may instill fear of Allah in the hearts of his disobedient creatures, so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allah. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country, but if you refuse my call, you must remember that all your possesions are perishable. My cavalry would take possesion of your land, and my Prophethood will assume superiority over your kingship".

What to you call this if not the threat of war if he and his brother surrendered to Islam?

And Allah is by no means a truly compassionate deity in Islam. It's his way or the highway(hellfire).
 

RedTiger

Half mast
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
23,058
Location
Beside the sea-side, Beside the sea.
The difference is that Jesus and Buddha were pacifists who practiced what they taught. Sri Lanka is not the leading buddhist country in the world either. But any buddhist who commits violence has breached the 5 precepts. Muhammed and his companions who he called the best muslims were directly reponsible for what we would call crimes against humanity and he called for all muslims to follow in his example. No he wasn't all bad, I quite admired his tolerance in his early days while he was mocked and mistreated in Mecca although he did grab his bully by the throat and said "Woe you! Wou you! By Allah you will be slaughtered!". Which happened later in their first formal battle.

When he started feeling comfortable in his military power he also sent this remarkably peacefull letter to the King of Oman and his brother.

"In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, from muhammed bin. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. I invite both of you to the call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allah has sent me as a prophet to all His creation in order that I may instill fear of Allah in the hearts of his disobedient creatures, so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allah. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country, but if you refuse my call, you must remember that all your possesions are perishable. My cavalry would take possesion of your land, and my Prophethood will assume superiority over your kingship".

What to you call this if not the threat of war if he and his brother surrendered to Islam?

And Allah is by no means a truly compassionate deity in Islam. It's his way or the highway(hellfire).
You are correct. Buddha and Jesus (by and large) were pacifists, they didn't believe in fighting back. Do you know what happens to people who don't fight back? This happens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori
In 1835 some displaced Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, from the Taranaki region, but living in Wellington, invaded the Chathams. On 19 November 1835, the brig Lord Rodney, a hijacked[31] European ship, arrived carrying 500 Māori (men, women and children) with guns, clubs and axes, and loaded with 78 tonnes of potatoes for planting, followed by another load, by the same ship, of 400 more Māori on 5 December 1835. Before the second shipment of people arrived, the invaders killed a 12-year-old girl and hung her flesh on posts.[32] They proceeded to enslave some Moriori and kill and cannibalise others. With the arrival of the second group "parties of warriors armed with muskets, clubs and tomahawks, led by their chiefs, walked through Moriori tribal territories and settlements without warning, permission or greeting. If the districts were wanted by the invaders, they curtly informed the inhabitants that their land had been taken and the Moriori living there were now vassals."[33]

A hui or council of Moriori elders was convened at the settlement called Te Awapatiki. Despite knowing that the Māori did not share their pacifism, and despite the admonition by some of the elder chiefs that the principle of Nunuku was not appropriate now, two chiefs — Tapata and Torea — declared that "the law of Nunuku was not a strategy for survival, to be varied as conditions changed; it was a moral imperative."[33] Although this council decided in favour of peace, the invading Māori inferred it was a prelude to war, as was common practice during the Musket Wars. This precipitated a massacre, most complete in the Waitangi area followed by an enslavement of the Moriori survivors.[34]

A Moriori survivor recalled : "[The Māori] commenced to kill us like sheep.... [We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed – men, women and children indiscriminately." A Māori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped....." [35] The invaders ritually killed some 10% of the population, a ritual that included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days.[36]

During the following enslavement the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them.[36] Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori, or to have children with each other. Which was different from the customary form of slavery practiced on mainland New Zealand.[37] However, many Moriori women had children by their Māori masters. A small number of Moriori women eventually married either Māori or European men. Some were taken from the Chathams and never returned. In 1842 a small party of Māori and their Moriori slaves migrated to the subantarctic Auckland Islands, surviving for some 20 years on sealing and flax growing.[38] Only 101 Moriori out of a population of about 2,000 were left alive by 1862.[39]
In the words of the late Malcom X
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."


It's a base human instinct to subjugate those who are weaker. Why would you be against a message telling people to hold onto their rights and fight their oppression.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
You are correct. Buddha and Jesus (by and large) were pacifists, they didn't believe in fighting back. Do you know what happens to people who don't fight back? This happens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori


In the words of the late Malcom X
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."


It's a base human instinct to subjugate those who are weaker. Why would you be against a message telling people to hold onto their rights and fight their oppression.
Only that Muhammed was the bullied who later in turned into the bully. Siddharta was born in to worldly power as the crown prince but left it excatly because he considered it a hinderance to his spiritual pursuit of the cause of suffering and end to suffering. There is a reason why Siddharta says that buddharma goes against the stream of the world. It goes against the wordly conventions and traditions. It even goes beyond a conventional reality.

"Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handled saw, he who gave rise to a mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching.
— Kakacūpama Sutta, Majjhima-Nikāya 28 at MN i 128-29[5]


Unlike Muhammed who taught that his jihadists could already smell the sweet perfume of heaven if they died as martyrs on the field of battle, Siddharta said that soldiers do not attain higher rebirth(human and above).

As a pragmatic person I'm not against self-defense, but I am against agression.

And actually the vast majority of enlightened buddhist practioners and teachers on earth managed to live happy and free lives without inflicting violence or oppression on others. If you want dirt on buddhism I'm all for it because it's a favourite subject of mine.
 
Last edited:

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
You are correct. Buddha and Jesus (by and large) were pacifists, they didn't believe in fighting back. Do you know what happens to people who don't fight back? This happens:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori


In the words of the late Malcom X
"Our religion teaches us to be intelligent. Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery."


It's a base human instinct to subjugate those who are weaker. Why would you be against a message telling people to hold onto their rights and fight their oppression.
There is a difference between fighting back, and initiating wars. Muhammad initiates wars. The Muslims after him, lead by people whose life we should emulate (Abu-Bakr, Umar etc) and generals who were friends of Muhammad (Khalid ibn al Walid for example) were into constant wars, first with Muhammad’s own tribe, then with the other Arab tribes, and finally with the Romans and Persians. These were not defensive wars, it was the Muslims who initiated them, with tens of thousands of people being killed of them.
With whomever they could, it was convert to Muslims and accept Muhammad as overlord (or later the khalif), pay the tax and accept Muhammad/khalif as overlord, or get killed.

Let’s be fair, it is a quite similar treatment to what ISIS gave to the ‘nonbelievers’ a few years ago. Or what Genghis Khan and Timur gave to their enemies (tho Genghis didn’t care about changing their religions, it was pay tax or die), or Alexander the Great gave his enemies. Sure, it was what the other leaders of that time did and it was perfectly acceptable. But it would look ridiculous if someone would start saying that Genghis Khan was a symbol of peace, preached peace and should be emulated.
 

ThatsGreat

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
1,656
Supports
Arsenal
Why compare Muhammad with Buddha, compare him with islamic sufi saints like Rumi or Moinuddin Chisti. He doesn't even compare favourably with people of his own religion.
 

MrMarcello

In a well-ordered universe...
Joined
Dec 26, 2000
Messages
52,823
Location
On a pale blue dot in space
Reading the past page plus of the back and forth reminds me of this quote by Seneca
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
Why compare Muhammad with Buddha, compare him with islamic sufi saints like Rumi or Moinuddin Chisti. He doesn't even compare favourably with people of his own religion.
For what is worth, I think that he compared favorably with most of the leaders of his age (especially Arab tribe-leaders). He was definitely a highly intelligent person who achieved much on his life, whom has been arguably the most important person in mankind's history, and whom after death essentially reached Godhood status * (he is a God for Muslim, in all characteristics a God has, except not being called a God).

The problem is, when you put today's moral standards to judge his life, he comes very poorly, just like most of Nomadic rulers of that age. And while this is fine for most historical figures, it is not for the guy we are supposed to worship and emulate. As a good Muslim, I shouldn't even live in some non-Muslim country **. If I am living in a Muslim country, I should go to jihad and convert the other countries to Islam (or die trying, death for a warrior is desirable, the highest part of heaven is guaranteed). While we are there, I should also marry underage girls ***.

* Technically he is not a God, he was just a prophet. However, he showed Godlike powers, like when he divided the moon, or when angels fought his war, or when he traveled the entire universe in a single day. He is venerated by Muslims, every day Muslims not only thank him, but also his family and his friends (whom by the way fought each other after his death, for example, Muhammad's widow Aisha fought a war vs Muhammad's nephew, friend and one of his successor Ali, which resulted with a few thousand deaths). Yet somehow, we should thank both of them every day, and try to emulate them. So in the end, he has many characteristics of a God, though in the Quran, it is explicitly shown many times that he is not a God. He had only delegated power (at times without even knowing it), but nevertheless he had plenty of power that in the myths, only Gods have.

** I am not saying this as a racist 'Muslims don't belong here'. I am saying in the way, that a good Muslim who tries to reach the best version of himself, should be surrounded by other good Muslims, and should live in Arab countries, preferably Mecca or Medina. After all, a good Muslim should try to emulate Muhammad as much as possible, in pretty much everything (though he might find himself confused when he realizes that he can marry only 4 wives, but to emulate Muhammad, he needs to have more).

*** It doesn't matter if Aisha was 6 or 8 or 9, or we can become generous, even 12. It doesn't matter if she has passed puberty or not. It doesn't matter if that was the standard of that time. Again, I acknowledge that for the standard of his time, Muhammad compares favorably. But if you assume that we need to emulate Muhammad, and he was the greatest and best human being ever, then it is okay to be a pedophile. At the end of the day, "pedophile" is a social term that might change with age, and genetically speaking, there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. But morally speaking, there is plenty of wrong with that, and as a human species, we have passed that stage. So, Muhammad as a historical figure marrying Aisha, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Muhammad as the best person ever and someone we should emulate even now, there is plenty of wrong with that, and this incident alone would make him not worthy of being emulated.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
For what is worth, I think that he compared favorably with most of the leaders of his age (especially Arab tribe-leaders). He was definitely a highly intelligent person who achieved much on his life, whom has been arguably the most important person in mankind's history, and whom after death essentially reached Godhood status * (he is a God for Muslim, in all characteristics a God has, except not being called a God).

The problem is, when you put today's moral standards to judge his life, he comes very poorly, just like most of Nomadic rulers of that age. And while this is fine for most historical figures, it is not for the guy we are supposed to worship and emulate. As a good Muslim, I shouldn't even live in some non-Muslim country **. If I am living in a Muslim country, I should go to jihad and convert the other countries to Islam (or die trying, death for a warrior is desirable, the highest part of heaven is guaranteed). While we are there, I should also marry underage girls ***.

* Technically he is not a God, he was just a prophet. However, he showed Godlike powers, like when he divided the moon, or when angels fought his war, or when he traveled the entire universe in a single day. He is venerated by Muslims, every day Muslims not only thank him, but also his family and his friends (whom by the way fought each other after his death, for example, Muhammad's widow Aisha fought a war vs Muhammad's nephew, friend and one of his successor Ali, which resulted with a few thousand deaths). Yet somehow, we should thank both of them every day, and try to emulate them. So in the end, he has many characteristics of a God, though in the Quran, it is explicitly shown many times that he is not a God. He had only delegated power (at times without even knowing it), but nevertheless he had plenty of power that in the myths, only Gods have.

** I am not saying this as a racist 'Muslims don't belong here'. I am saying in the way, that a good Muslim who tries to reach the best version of himself, should be surrounded by other good Muslims, and should live in Arab countries, preferably Mecca or Medina. After all, a good Muslim should try to emulate Muhammad as much as possible, in pretty much everything (though he might find himself confused when he realizes that he can marry only 4 wives, but to emulate Muhammad, he needs to have more).

*** It doesn't matter if Aisha was 6 or 8 or 9, or we can become generous, even 12. It doesn't matter if she has passed puberty or not. It doesn't matter if that was the standard of that time. Again, I acknowledge that for the standard of his time, Muhammad compares favorably. But if you assume that we need to emulate Muhammad, and he was the greatest and best human being ever, then it is okay to be a pedophile. At the end of the day, "pedophile" is a social term that might change with age, and genetically speaking, there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile. But morally speaking, there is plenty of wrong with that, and as a human species, we have passed that stage. So, Muhammad as a historical figure marrying Aisha, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Muhammad as the best person ever and someone we should emulate even now, there is plenty of wrong with that, and this incident alone would make him not worthy of being emulated.
People who claim divine authority claim timeless values and should be held to timeless values otherwise they are "just a guy". Muhammed doesn't even pass the decent person test when you factor in his whole life. If we factor in that he was just a man of his time, we should welcome in the perception that he wasn't anything beyond that. Jesus and Siddharta alone were miles ahead of him despite that he is the newest of religous icons.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
People who claim divine authority claim timeless values and should be held to timeless values otherwise they are "just a guy". Muhammed doesn't even pass the decent person test when you factor in his whole life. If we factor in that he was just a man of his time, we should welcome in the perception that he wasn't anything beyond that. Jesus and Siddharta alone were miles ahead of him despite that he is the newest of religous icons.
To be fair, it could also be that Jesus didn't have any power (Muhammad had) so hard to abuse power if you don't have power, and Siddharta probably never existed.

In either case, they were relatively unimportant during their lives, and didn't have really much power. Muhammad on the other hand, became the most powerful person in Arabia during his life, and within 10 years of his death, his country was the most powerful country in that part of the world.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
To be fair, it could also be that Jesus didn't have any power (Muhammad had) so hard to abuse power if you don't have power, and Siddharta probably never existed.

In either case, they were relatively unimportant during their lives, and didn't have really much power. Muhammad on the other hand, became the most powerful person in Arabia during his life, and within 10 years of his death, his country was the most powerful country in that part of the world.
There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.
I didn't say he never existed. I said, he probably never existed.

The burden of proof is always in those that say something existed. I don't have to prove his non-existence, same as you don't have to prove the non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn that I pretend it exists.

For what is worth, I don't have a strong opinion on his existence, and as far as I know, Mahayana part of Buddhism can perfectly go on without a historical Buddha.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
I didn't say he never existed. I said, he probably never existed.

The burden of proof is always in those that say something existed. I don't have to prove his non-existence, same as you don't have to prove the non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn that I pretend it exists.

For what is worth, I don't have a strong opinion on his existence, and as far as I know, Mahayana part of Buddhism can perfectly go on without a historical Buddha.
There is ample evidence that Siddharta existed. The Kangyur, which is complitation of Siddhartas teachings equals the volume of 108 bibles in volume. I've never heard a historian say he probably never existed. Whether he fulfilled the criteria of Buddhahood is another thing for those who consider buddhahood a thing.

If my posts aren't saved on redcafe I'm not even sure it's possible to prove I existed in 50 years time.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
There is ample evidence that Siddharta existed. The Kangyur, which is complitation of Siddhartas teachings equals the volume of 108 bibles in volume. I've never heard a historian say he probably never existed. Whether he fulfilled the criteria of Buddhahood is another thing for those who consider buddhahood a thing.

If my posts aren't saved on redcafe I'm not even sure it's possible to prove I existed.
There is plenty of books, probably even more, that talk and mention about the Greek Gods. I don’t think they prove the existence of a historical Zeus.

Anyway, I am not very educated in Buddishm to have a strong opinion on this. From what I have read, there is no consensus on his existence. Probably the first written evidence come from Emperor Asoka, but that is quite later. Writing was definitely a thing in Buddha’s time though, but there is not writings about him. I know that the theory says that there was no mentions of him, cause his monks memorized his teaching instead of writing them, but this doesn’t give a lot of scientific confidence.

Similarly, Lao Tzun probably did not exist too. Maybe they both did, maybe Abraham and Noah did too, but there is no evidence about it (while there is some evidence for Jesus, and a mount of evidence for Muhammad).
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
There is plenty of books, probably even more, that talk and mention about the Greek Gods. I don’t think they prove the existence of a historical Zeus.

Anyway, I am not very educated in Buddishm to have a strong opinion on this. From what I have read, there is no consensus on his existence. Probably the first written evidence come from Emperor Asoka, but that is quite later. Writing was definitely a thing in Buddha’s time though, but there is not writings about him. I know that the theory says that there was no mentions of him, cause his monks memorized his teaching instead of writing them, but this doesn’t give a lot of scientific confidence.

Similarly, Lao Tzun probably did not exist too. Maybe they both did, maybe Abraham and Noah did too, but there is no evidence about it (while there is some evidence for Jesus, and a mount of evidence for Muhammad).
Well you're entitled to your opinion. unfortunately, I not have his bones and dna to show you.
 

Zlatattack

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
The difference is that Jesus and Buddha were pacifists who practiced what they taught. Sri Lanka is not the leading buddhist country in the world either. But any buddhist who commits violence has breached the 5 precepts. Muhammed and his companions who he called the best muslims were directly reponsible for what we would call crimes against humanity and he called for all muslims to follow in his example. No he wasn't all bad, I quite admired his tolerance in his early days while he was mocked and mistreated in Mecca although he did grab his bully by the throat and said "Woe you! Wou you! By Allah you will be slaughtered!". Which happened later in their first formal battle.

When he started feeling comfortable in his military power he also sent this remarkably peacefull letter to the King of Oman and his brother.

"In the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful, from muhammed bin. Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. I invite both of you to the call of Islam. Embrace Islam. Allah has sent me as a prophet to all His creation in order that I may instill fear of Allah in the hearts of his disobedient creatures, so that there may be left no excuse for those who deny Allah. If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country, but if you refuse my call, you must remember that all your possesions are perishable. My cavalry would take possesion of your land, and my Prophethood will assume superiority over your kingship".

What to you call this if not the threat of war if he and his brother surrendered to Islam?

And Allah is by no means a truly compassionate deity in Islam. It's his way or the highway(hellfire).
Completely false. Provide a source for this BS please.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
Completely false. Provide a source for this BS please.
Which part of it? If you are talking about the islamic stuff I am using "The sealed nectar" voted as the best biography of Muhammed as reference. I will send you my copy for free if you are willing to pay for the porto, but you have to promise me to read it.
 

Cascarino

Magnum Poopus
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
7,616
Location
Wales
Supports
Swansea
There is no evidence that Siddharta never existed. The existence of Shakya clan is well documented and Siddharta as well. It's just something you've made up.
See I used to hold this view, until one day cutting into a watermelon, which revealed the seeds to be laid out in a pattern which read that Siddharta does not exist.
 

Zlatattack

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
Which part of it? If you are talking about the islamic stuff I am using "The sealed nectar" voted as the best biography of Muhammed as reference. I will send you my copy for free if you are willing to pay for the porto, but you have to promise me to read it.

The contents of the letter are false. Many versions of it are spread over anti Islamic sites.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
The contents of the letter are false. Many versions of it are spread over anti Islamic sites.
I am quoting the biography recommended to me by our fellow muslim caftards and voted as the best biography of Muhammed by the muslim world league.
 

Zlatattack

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2017
Messages
7,374
I am quoting the biography recommended to me by our fellow muslim caftards and voted as the best biography of Muhammed by the muslim world league.
You're misquoting it. Free pdfs of the Sealed nectar are available online. That was the gist of the letter but not the word.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
You're misquoting it. Free pdfs of the Sealed nectar are available online. That was the gist of the letter but not the word.
Its the words. Do you want me to send you scanned photo as evidence? Like I said I will send you damn book for free if you promise me to read it. I will scan the letter tomorrow if it doesn't suffice, but you have will admit you're wrong otherwise your not holding up your end of the bargain.

It starts on page 479 and continues to page 480. If the PDF is similar it should easy for you to look it up.
 
Last edited:

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
Well you're entitled to your opinion. unfortunately, I not have his bones and dna to show you.
You seem to slightly get offended (for someone who attacks other people religions, though I agree with you there), when basic questions are thrown about Buddhism. But regarding the existence of Buddha, and who needs to prove it, I can only quote a wise man:


The burden of proof is on people who claim there is an almighty god.
So, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, Buddha probably didn't exist.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
You seem to slightly get offended (for someone who attacks other people religions, though I agree with you there), when basic questions are thrown about Buddhism. But regarding the existence of Buddha, and who needs to prove it, I can only quote a wise man:




So, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, Buddha probably didn't exist.
It's pretty hard to prove beyond doubt that anyone existed 2500 years ago. We can only rely on the evidence available. Do you want me to recommend books? Or what kind of evidence are you looking for?
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
It's pretty hard to prove beyond doubt that anyone existed 2500 years ago. We can only rely on the evidence available.
And the evidence is very scarce and dates to a couple of centuries after his death. A bit like Confucious, Pythagoras, Zarathustra, or Lao Tzu, less than Jesus, far less than Muhammad, more than Abraham or Moses.

Which is fine, if he existed, it is likely that like Jesus, he was relatively not famous on his life, probably even quite irrelevant. But his teachings - like Jesus' - grew over time. Or were invented - like Jesus' - from people who didn't know him.

I don't even think that saying this is controversial outside of Buddhist circles. And I am quite sure, that the existence of Buddha is not extremely important for some Buddhist schools (for example Zen).
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
And the evidence is very scarce and dates to a couple of centuries after his death. A bit like Confucious, Pythagoras, Zarathustra, or Lao Tzu, less than Jesus, far less than Muhammad, more than Abraham or Moses.

Which is fine, if he existed, it is likely that like Jesus, he was relatively not famous on his life, probably even quite irrelevant. But his teachings - like Jesus' - grew over time. Or were invented - like Jesus' - from people who didn't know him.

I don't even think that saying this is controversial outside of Buddhist circles. And I am quite sure, that the existence of Buddha is not extremely important for some Buddhist schools (for example Zen).
Siddharta is just considered one of many buddha's, but the supreme nirmanakaya of this eon. Like I said before, you can do buddhism entirely without Siddharta, it did not start with him or end with him. The Dzogchen transmission starts with Prahevajra, the mahamudra transmission starts with Tilopa. The first Budhha on earth is said to be Vipassi. The first buddha of all time is said to be Samantatabhrada.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
Siddharta is just considered one of many buddha's, but the supreme nirmanakaya of this eon. Like I said before, you can do buddhism entirely without Siddharta, it did not start with him or end with him. The Dzogchen transmission starts with Prahevajra, the mahamudra transmission starts with Tilopa. The first Budhha on earth is said to be Vipassi. The first buddha of all time is said to be Samantatabhrada.
Yeah, ok, though this has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Oh, and the other two guys seem as believable as Posseidon and Hades.
 

AaronRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
9,615
I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say :lol:. I’m never good with explaining things. But I do love talking about shit like this.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
Yeah, ok, though this has nothing to do with what I was discussing.

Oh, and the other two guys seem as believable as Posseidon and Hades.
I consider that a completely reasonable position.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.
It's really not unless you render history completely pointless. I might as well say buddha was muhammed and muhammed was buddha going by this logic. It's the bullshit argument that all religions are the same because they are religions, which is like saying that all political positions are the same because they are all political. Hence there is really no diffference between democracy or fascism.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.

Let’s say the 10 commandments came in, the rules were set. Now everyone is obeying them so theres less murder, less evilness. Even though some are using religion with evil intent. Creating wars, killing Millions because they follow the “wrong god“. So yeah religion made the world worse in that sense. Don’t know where I’m going with that, my mind kinda went a bit off here sorry. I hope you guys get what I’m TRYING to say :lol:. I’m never good with explaining things. But I do love talking about shit like this.
No one in their right mind said that a fecking eyeball just popped out of nowhere.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
These are the points I have been making. It's not the religion but people.
By looking at the comments here you can see that. The hatred towards other religions without actually understanding it. This is the same with lots of people in every religion. Muslims included.

If people are so blind that they can't see beyond their nose then no matter how much you try to explain and open their minds it will be closed.

Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in around 270 BC.
Thai Buddhism is greatly influenced by the Theravada class of Buddhism.
Buddhism started in India of course, but it didn't flourish much.
So Sri Lanka is now the leading country in certainly this class of Buddhism. China maybe the largest but officially communism has no religion.
Every full moon day( poya) is a holiday in Sri Lanka. Bodu Bala Sena is a very hardliner Buddhist organization and their chief has even been in jail for inciting riots against Muslims.
The same way there are extreme organizations in Muslim countries like Pakistan inciting riots against non Muslims. Of course India too along with Myanmar.
It's not unique to any particular religion. People need to understand that religion is personal and it's between the person and God.
I do agree that it's certainly stupid not to allow people to pray to whatever they want to. No one can force someone to believe in anything.
Saying Mohammed is a killer and Buddha was a peaceful man is being stupid. Closing one's mind and seeing what is in front of your nose is the quickest way to lose the human perspective on life and more importantly one's own salvation.
How is called a warlord who initiates unprovoked wars that kill thousands?

There is no hatred of the religion, it is calling a spade a spade. Secular Islam is perfectly okay, but secular Islam is not the Islam Muhammad taught. Jihad was not a fight within our mind to become better people, but was literally a call of arms against nonbelievers. fecking an underage woman was not a figure of speech - and it does not matter if she gave consent or not - neither it was marrying 11 women.

In a civilized country, if you feck a 8-9 years old, you go to jail, simple as that. A Muslim who wants to emulate Muhammad, would go to jail in today's modern societies. But maybe 8 was a figure of speech for 28 and it should not be taken literally, and it is me who cannot see what is in front of my nose.
 

Revan

Assumptionman
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
49,924
Location
London
All that and that's what you say. Goddammit! :lol:. Also big bang maybe?
Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.
 

AaronRedDevil

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2018
Messages
9,615
Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.
Ok calm down. I was joking.
 

Fingeredmouse

Full Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
5,657
Location
Glasgow
I do believe in Heaven and Hell, I really hope it’s real. Even everything that exist today is impossible to be random or just happens. Even something as complex as an fecking eyeball is scary to think about to just pop out of nowhere. And Never seeing the people you’ve lost seems depressing as hell. but just for the sake of a conversation of the other side. Is that religion was put in to stop the world from killing itself and things being a thousand times worse for today. Even the “guilt” religion teaches you, feeling seems like an illusion because being bad is a feeling we were taught when we were young. The sins. if we knew there was no other side. Being sad when a relative dies seems pointless. We are never seeing that person every again, what would being sad even do for you. It should make us more colder as a person. We are nice to each other because we have too. In case we are judged in the end. Otherwise, the world would be so different. There’s no sin, so there’s no evilness. It’s just people doing horrible things to each other without any feelings of guilt. You and hitler had a life, one worse then the other, yet both end up in the same place. Suffering the nothingness. Basically whatever you do, it means nothing in the end. Imagine proving there’s no afterlife. There’s no point to anything. Even living a current miserable life, why should you keep going if there’s nothing that makes it worth it in the end. Why keep suffering.
Leaving aside the spontaneous eyeball generation strangeness, something seeming pleasant does not make it true or vice versa not is morality based dependant on fear of punishment or hope of reward in an afterlife.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
11,212
Ok, I draw it for you. There is a perfectly credible theory that explains very well, where did the eye come from. There is such a mountain of evidence for it, that in science circles, it is as accepted as the theory of gravity. It is called 'the theory of evolution' btw, it probably won't harm you if you read something about it. At the very least, I would give it a try.
I think Mrs. Garrison describes the theory of evolution quite nicely.