Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.



This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.



There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.


There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.


What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.


***

Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.

A God who does not want us to suffer, nor feels we deserve to ever.




Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?




Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?



That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?



How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't beleive in something ?


You Tell Me, because I will never understand that....

dude, why do u care so much about what a dum relegion or its followers delusionally believe about your existance or future?! this wont change their point of view obviously so why care?

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.



This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.



There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.


There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.


What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.


***

Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.

A God who does not want us to suffer, nor feels we deserve to ever.




Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?




Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?



That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?



How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't beleive in something ?


You Tell Me, because I will never understand that....

The reasons why human suffer in the Bible is because of duality.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
dude, why do u care so much about what a dum relegion or its followers delusionally believe about your existance or future?! this wont change their point of view obviously so why care?


I understand that another person's point of view cannot affect me if I do not allow it to. So in regard to my own personal safety/state of mind, I have no concern.


However, many many innocent people are affected by this idealogy. Beleive it or not, I DO care about Christian people, and I notice a pattern of unhealthy mentalities within many Christians and Atheists alike.


If one person beleives that another deserves to suffer, then that one thought affects as many people as it can. I aim to get people to question why they wish to utilize or embrace suffering as a punishment or lesson upon others.



BTW, I find it ironic that you ask me why do I care about Christianity when you yourself attack Christianity more than I do.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I understand that another person's point of view cannot affect me if I do not allow it to. So in regard to my own personal safety/state of mind, I have no concern.


However, many many innocent people are affected by this idealogy. Beleive it or not, I DO care about Christian people, and I notice a pattern of unhealthy mentalities within many Christians and Atheists alike.


If one person beleives that another deserves to suffer, then that one thought affects as many people as it can. I aim to get people to question why they wish to utilize or embrace suffering as a punishment or lesson upon others.



BTW, I find it ironic that you ask me why do I care about Christianity when you yourself attack Christianity more than I do.

true, but my threads names are not personally defensive in nature. its a statement not necessarily anger{ridicule yes but it TRY to keep the anger at bay,it isnt a healthy emotion. you SEEM, and i do admit im hypothesizing here, to be reacting to jia's posts, and links. recent and not so recent, concerning hell, always}. besides im an AWEFUL example to be following as far as mental health/emotional motivations go . seriously, i might be able to reason but as far as personalities go, mine is probably the most awkward and unstable youl find around here .

Originally posted by leonheartmm
true, but my threads names are not personally defensive in nature. its a statement not necessarily anger{ridicule yes but it TRY to keep the anger at bay,it isnt a healthy emotion. you SEEM, and i do admit im hypothesizing here, to be reacting to jia's posts, and links. recent and not so recent, concerning hell, always}. besides im an AWEFUL example to be following as far as mental health/emotional motivations go . seriously, i might be able to reason but as far as personalities go, mine is probably the most awkward and unstable youl find around here .


No Worries


But yes, this is defensive...not of myself, but of everyone. No One Deserves to Suffer, especially for eternity, and I despise that beleif greatly, because it causes nothing but destruction.

The Other Point I wanted to make was the Idea that we have inheritted Adam and Eve's Original Sin, therefore we are unclean and sinful by nature, undeserving of anything but suffering...



One time I asked a few Christian debators (no names) if they take personal responsibility for the Spanish Inquisition, for the Salem Witch Trials, for the Crusades, etc.


Ofcourse, they all said no. What thier religious predecessors have done is not thier current responsibility.


So I ask...if you will not take responsibility for what past Christians have done, then why should I take ANY responsibility for what Adam and Eve supposedly did ?

No, not all. Just those on my List.

Oh, you have a list too, eh??

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.



This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.



There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.


There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.


What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.


***

Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.

A God who does not want us to suffer, nor feels we deserve to ever.




Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?




Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?



That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?



How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't beleive in something ?


You Tell Me, because I will never understand that.... Good thing I don't believe any of that shit.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Oh, you have a list too, eh??

Everyone has a list. I need a freaking list.

How about the suffering in Buddhism ? ..why should people suffer only because they have desires ?


Did u ask yourself that question ?

Originally posted by Fatima
How about the suffering in Buddhism ? ..why should people suffer only because they have desires ?


Did u ask yourself that question ?

People don't suffer because they have desire. People suffer in life and the reason they suffer is because of attachments. If you don't have attachments, then you will not suffer. Buddhism doesn't say if suffering is good or bad; it maybe both. Buddhism is all about understanding where suffering is coming from, and taking responsibility for your own suffering. If you want to suffer, then suffer, but remember that you (or I) are the author of your own suffering.

I am the author of all suffering.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
I am the author of all suffering.

I suffer when I read your posts.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?

Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?

That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?

How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't beleive in something ?

You Tell Me, because I will never understand that.... \\

Goddess, let me see if I can try to answer some of these questions for you, at least according to what I've studied, observed, asked about...

Firstly, I think there is a need to understand that most Christians feel that the bible is inerrent: "God put it directly down, this is exactly what he said, etc. etc." That seems to play a very large part in it all.

In the bible, there are very two "God-like" personalities. In the Old Testament, we see Wrath!God. Cross this guy, and he'll vanquish you in a thunderbolt. Eat the wrong fruit, and the rest of humanity is doomed. No matter that the devil himself tempted you into it. God doesn't care. You weren't supposed to do it. No mercy.

Then we have the Hippie!God of the New Testament. Come on you people now, smile on your brother everybody get together try to love one another right now. Love your neighbor, love your kids, love your wife, help each other out, man.

We even have a Wrath!God story of Job, wherein God makes a bet with the devil, saying, "haha, devil, this dude Job is so faithful to me, do your worst to him, he'll still stay faithful." And so the devil proceeds to torture Job endlessly, and God proceeds to win the bet giggling snidely, and they all have a jolly good time except for Job, whose family dies and career crashes and body deteriorates. Way to make a point, God.

So with that bit of history in mind, it's quite easy to see where people would get the idea that God does, in fact, think that people deserve suffering.

Which is where we get our Crusades, and our Spanish Inquisitions, and our RIGHT OF DIVINE MANDATE. If God said so, we should do it. You don't want to turn out like that Job fellow, now do you?

Another factor to this, is the whole "ACCEPT JESUS INTO YOUR HEART OR YOU'RE GOING TO HELL SUCKAAS!!!" issue, where we again confront the issue, "Is the bible inerrent?"

For yes, the bible does say, "The way to heaven is through Jesus." and all that. It says this quite clearly. At least four times. In the gospels. Which is the same story told from four different points of view. I once checked the same quote in all four gospels, and found them to be ALMOST the same, but still different. The quote was Jesus saying something.

Bible... inerrent?

However.

So from that, Christians have the good intention of "We shall save you from the eternal damnation of the ugly ugly-ness that is hell, because we KNOW that the only way to heaven is through Jesus." *crosses self*

It's a good intention. But we all know what road is paved with good intentions. Ironic, isn't it?

And thus we get the fanatics and the crazies who think they're doing good. But they're really not. It all comes down to the question of (well, very simply of) if that particular person believes in Wrath!God or Hippie!God, if they believe the bible is inerrent or not, and whether or not you've got to specifically say the words, "I accept Jesus into my heart," and jump through that particular hoop to be able to go to heaven.

Obviously, there's a lot more than that. But this is a very nutshelly simplified sparknotes version of what I hope makes sense to you, indeed, I hope I even answered the question.

And thank you for not lashing out as us all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People don't suffer because they have desire. People suffer in life and the reason they suffer is because of attachments. If you don't have attachments, then you will not suffer. Buddhism doesn't say if suffering is good or bad; it maybe both. Buddhism is all about understanding where suffering is coming from, and taking responsibility for your own suffering. If you want to suffer, then suffer, but remember that you (or I) are the author of your own suffering.


Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

I think the point is that you have to suffer to become enlightened. In fact you usually have to suffer to get anything worthwile.

I dont know why but something tells me that Islam can be more self-abusive than Buddhism...dont know why.

Put another way: we suffer because of incomplete consciousness.
Ever have a nightmare? Why are you afraid if it's just a dream?
Because you don't realize it's a dream. You think it's real because of incomplete consciousness.

Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

I am a Buddhist and your statement above is not true for any type of Buddhism I know of.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I think the point is that you have to suffer to become enlightened. In fact you usually have to suffer to get anything worthwile.

Oh ..So please tell me how the hunger is gonna enlighten them ? God created the blessings of this world for human beings' benefit and pleasure, so that they would give Him thanks in return and enjoy it not living in a misery life and suffering .

Originally posted by Alfheim
I dont know why but something tells me that Islam can be more self-abusive than Buddhism...dont know why.

nah ..lets be objective Buddhists spend their life performing empty, soul-darkening works that will bring no benefit in either this world or the afterlife. But Islam offers people well-being, beauty and contentment in this life and the next, and forbids any kind of practice that goes against human nature.So it is that our Prophet (Pbuh), in many of his sayings, advises us to make religion simple and easy .Beside there is no such thing like nuns or monks that exist in most religions .

"Make things easy for the people, and do not make it difficult for them, and make them calm (with glad tidings) and do not repulse (them)."1

and the Quran says , "God does not want any injustice for His servants." (40:31)

Originally posted by Fatima
Oh ..So please tell me how the hunger is gonna enlighten them ?


Er know what Ramadan is? Your a rock all the time. Too tired to reply to the rest.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a Buddhist and your statement above is not true for any type of Buddhism I know of.


How about the principal teachings of Buddah that u call 'Four Noble Truths':


1 - There is suffering and misery in life.

2- The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.

3 - Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

4 - Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Er know what Ramadan is? Your a rock all the time. Too tired to reply to the rest.


You mean to feel of others people hunger and donate for them Its for a good and human purposes though.

Because we refuse to accept legitimate suffering.

Originally posted by Fatima
How about the principal teachings of Buddah that u call 'Four Noble Truths':


1 - There is suffering and misery in life.

2- The cause of this suffering and misery is desire.

3 - Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

4 - Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.


You have contradicted yourself. You have shown how Buddhism frees people from suffering not causes suffering. Again Buddhism is not the cause of suffering, but a way to be empowered over suffering.

Here are the Eight Fold Path so you can read them and gain a better understanding.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

The Noble Eightfold Path describes the way to the end of suffering, as it was laid out by Siddhartha Gautama. It is a practical guideline to ethical and mental development with the goal of freeing the individual from attachments and delusions; and it finally leads to understanding the truth about all things. Together with the Four Noble Truths it constitutes the gist of Buddhism. Great emphasis is put on the practical aspect, because it is only through practice that one can attain a higher level of existence and finally reach Nirvana. The eight aspects of the path are not to be understood as a sequence of single steps, instead they are highly interdependent principles that have to be seen in relationship with each other.

1. Right View

Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualise sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualisation in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration

The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

You all deserve to suffer for not believing in Samuel L. Jackson's absloute power,

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.



This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.



There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.


There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.


What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.


***

Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.

A God who does not want us to suffer, nor feels we deserve to ever.




Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?




Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?



That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?



How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't believe in something ?


You Tell Me, because I will never understand that....

It is true to that we are imperfect and inherently evil, however God doesn't believe that we should be unable to go to heaven because it. I guess I'll just explain my religion's interpretation of the Bible.

First, we don't believe that when you die you go to Heaven or Hell. Actually, we don't even believe in Hell, well, we believe in Hell but people don't go there.

People are inherently evil, and sin everyday. Because of this, there is nothing we can really do about this. God knows this. That's why he sent Jesus Christ down to die for us. his death had a symbolic meaning. Death is the ultimate payment for all of our sins. God's point is that because we sin all day everyday, and because there is nothing you can do about it, just die. If and when you die, all of your sins will be forgiven.

In our faith after Armageddon we don't go to Heaven, but stay here on Earth. It makes sense, because God's original intention was for us to live on the Earth peacefully and happily.

So, when Armageddon comes any and all of the evil people who haven't died and are still being "wicked" will be destroyed, while everyone who has died and the few people who are on the planet that love and worship god will live on Earth turned into a paradise forever.

^ How can you ever find happiness, when you think you are inherently evil? You are what you think; therefore, if you think you are good, but fall short, then good is what you will be. But if you think you are evil, then no one dieing on a cross can make you good.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
You all deserve to suffer for not believing in Samuel L. Jackson's absloute power.

Originally posted by Violent2Dope


..... you suck ass.....

Originally posted by Violent2Dope


....you suck ass.....

LOL DOUBLE POST

Originally posted by Violent2Dope
LOL DOUBLE POST

Get used to them.............................. oh yeah, you suck ass.

^ You two are making me suffer.

Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

hunger, misery and pain were a sideaffect of siddharta giving up food, ignorance and wordly pleasure. the NEGETIVITY associated with the giving up of those things was NOT what guided buddha. it was the trancendance of materialistic chains that stop most beings from reaching a higher level of existance, that finally allowed shakyamunisoon to break away from his human bond. atleast thats how i see it. however this world is, in part, physical. and in my oppinion, either not evolved/changed or inherently not fit enough to house a higher level ofconciousness. by its very nature, giving up on materialistic things will cause pain and suffering to the material body. as this dimension has holds on our body stronger than cages. but it IS necessary to make a differentiation between the SEPERATION/TRANCENDANCE and PAIN/SUFFERING, associated with that trancendance. the former{i think} plays a part in elevating you to higher level, the later, does not, and could ideally be done without, in an ideal world. also its good not to confuse the necessity to feal and understand the pain of others{needed for trancendance} with the pain of leaving materialistic bounds{not really a cause/need for trancendance, again, in my humble oppinion.}
furthermore, you should seperate, the pain that comes with the realisation{of some} that you are infact a prisoner of your desires{same way a human would hate to be a slave where its master had more control over it than its nature or conciounce}, and the pain that comes with LETTING GO of those desires which is due to addiction and habit. the former is probably needed in ascension. the later, it is your aim to overcome/avoid, and is not a necessity for trancendance.

furthermore, UNLIKE islam/christianity buddhism does NOT tell you that to you can only acheive enlightenment{actually not a concept found in islam or christianity} through sufferring. it might have been the legacy of buddhas to take alms, but thats a different thing. suffering isnt like the trial of sin/good deeds that allah places infront of you. its a wholly different concept. not sinister/totalitarian/tyrranically decisive, like that of islam. and noweher do i know of where suffering is directly proportional to enlightenmient . if indeed your suffering is causing you to lose focus and start hating/be scared of anything/cause disturbing internal conflict, your probably going AWAY from enlightenment, so no, that doesnt hold.

and while were on the subject, the LOWEST hell{islamic jahannum i mean} has peoples head cleaved in two, and their brains boiled with the sparks of hellfire as their fingers burn and ther bodies rot{and hellfire even the weakest is sinsiterly black and 5 times hotter than any fire eveer created in the univers,e including big bangs/sun etc}. this is done again and again forever. or how abaout the suicide, who will have an extra punishment of eternally, and continuously dying the same way he killed himself in real life.

or maybe ud prefer the real world. cutting hands for the slightest theivery. death by stoning for adultery or fornication on top pf 80 lashes each. encouragement to beat up children above 8 for not saying prayer. making women wear the burqa and have no contact with any men after 10 other than in the most crucial of matter. no punishment for marital rape. or the fact that any interest earnt on any money in real life will turn to molten metal and burn your entire body in the grave until the day of judgement. killing of infidels who say anything against the prophet. permissable beating of your wife if she does sumthing you dont like or is unislamic. denying sexuality until marriage. i cud go on and on. islamic is terrible when it comes to ABUSING the body and mind.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.
Okay.

How often do you have thoughts that would be recognized by Christianity as sinful? How often do you lust? How often do you have extramarital sex? How often do you curse? How often do you take God's name in vain? How often do you not honor God?

Heh, no.

We are not powerless as a people. We have a will, and we can overcome temptation. God has endowed us with His spirit--and He wouldn't do that unless He thought we were worth something. He even sent His Son to die for us so that we could have everlasting life--and who would sacrifice Himself for someone unless that someone were worth more than nothing?

Heaven is the only thing that truly matters, but that doesn't mean we aren't to enjoy ourselves on this Earth.

kk

And a God who does not stick by His Word. A God who has lied to us, who has deceived us, who has been edited and revised to suit their whims.

God does not want you to suffer.

Blasphemy is "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc." To say that the Bible is a lie is to disrespect God's Word.

It is not suffering that is necessary, but atonement.

Because it is not our will, but God's.

Suffering is not caused by a lack of belief--as I have stated numerous times in the past--but rather t lack of forgiveness. There are people who believe in God who are going to Hell, and even demons tremble before Him.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How often do you do things that would be recognized by Islam as sinful?
Very often. I don't deny my own sin.

Only to a nonbeliever.

Fail. Even if one isn't a Christian, we're approaching the subject from a Christian viewpoint.

No other book is the Word of God.

Continue to think so.

As the Bible has been written.

Suffering in this life, perhaps.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


We are not natural evil so much as we are easily misguided/immoral. The Bible like many other religions is an attempt to help us lead a moral and fulfilling life.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali

Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.

We are a powerful race no one's denying that. YHWH even acknowledges that in the book of genesis. Our problem is that we can be easily lead astray, I believe that is one of the many reasons why Christianity portrays humans as lambs.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali

This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.
No,no,no we are not worthless, but we are flawed as human beings. It's only by attempting to better ourselves will we ever understand our individual worth.



Originally posted by Goddess Kali

There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21)

Contemplate that.

Furthermore, we do not deserve to suffer so much as we need to suffer.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.

Stop listening to extremeist.




Originally posted by Goddess Kali
What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.



The Bible does not asser that belief.

Really, I find that Urizen/Kali has such a misguided view of Christianity and is so set in his prejudices that he will never get over them. I have explained on numerous occasions why Christians don't follow the rules and regulations of the Old Testament, but he continually uses that as anti-Christian ammunition.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali


Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.
Why don't you actually read the Bible and Judge for yourself instead of trusting what they say?



Originally posted by Goddess Kali


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.
Sounds like wishful thinking, no offense. Religion is an active practice, not one where an individual simply sit's on his buttocks whilst being adored by a diety from above.

As much as I would like everyone to be saved, it's not going to work that way.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali


Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?

Yes! Yes! Yes!

We do need to suffer, it's a part of life.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali

That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?
Because it makes you stronger as an individual, Enriches your soul, and gives purpose to the smallest things.


Originally posted by Goddess Kali





You Tell Me, because I will never understand that....

Because like most people you seem to want easy answers, but that's not how life works.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Very often. I don't deny my own sin.

You missed my point. What a sin is to you, is not a sin to someone else. They will claim that you are sinning against god and you will claim they are sinning against god, and then people die.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Only to a nonbeliever.

There is no hidden truth,

Originally posted by FeceMan
Fail. Even if one isn't a Christian, we're approaching the subject from a Christian viewpoint.

What? What does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by FeceMan
No other book is the Word of God.

What about the Koran? Just as many people believe that book is the word of god as believe the bible is the word of god. The truth is, they are only the word of man.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Continue to think so.

Continue to suffer then.

Originally posted by FeceMan
As the Bible has been written.

Also as the Koran was written.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Suffering in this life, perhaps.

People in Heaven will suffer when they see people in hell.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Really, I find that Urizen/Kali has such a misguided view of Christianity and is so set in his prejudices that he will never get over them. I have explained on numerous occasions why Christians don't follow the rules and regulations of the Old Testament, but he continually uses that as anti-Christian ammunition.

misguided, according to YOUR view of christianity which can also be said, to be misguided itself. and didnt jesus say, he didnt come to destroy the laws{of old}.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Really, I find that Urizen/Kali has such a misguided view of Christianity and is so set in his prejudices that he will never get over them. I have explained on numerous occasions why Christians don't follow the rules and regulations of the Old Testament, but he continually uses that as anti-Christian ammunition.

Yep, similair to many Anti-Christian ammunnition.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
misguided, according to YOUR view of christianity which can also be said, to be misguided itself.

Enough with the relativism please. Obviously, he's interperting it through a certain moral guideline. Last I check that's how morals work and the world work.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Enough with the relativism please. Obviously, he's interperting it through a certain moral guideline. Last I check that's how morals work and the world work.

That was really funny.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
misguided, according to YOUR view of christianity which can also be said, to be misguided itself. and didnt jesus say, he didnt come to destroy the laws{of old}.
My view of Christianity is soundly biblical.

Matthew 5:17

Matthew 5:20

I get two things from this:

1. Christ is making fun of the Pharisees. They are hypocritical and self-righteous, not righteous.

2. Christ is saying that it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven because we've all broken commandments of the Law.

However, Christ's crucifixion is what has made us righteous enough to enter heaven.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Enough with the relativism please. Obviously, he's interperting it through a certain moral guideline. Last I check that's how morals work and the world work.

it would be so much easier if people admitted to that. to other people, or themselves, for that matter. ignorance/avoidance, creates intenal conflict. internal conflict destroys you.

The Pharisees corrupted Judaism.

Originally posted by FeceMan
My view of Christianity is soundly biblical.

Matthew 5:17

Matthew 5:20

I get two things from this:

1. Christ is making fun of the Pharisees. They are hypocritical and self-righteous, not righteous.

2. Christ is saying that it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven because we've all broken commandments of the Law.

However, Christ's crucifixion is what has made us righteous enough to enter heaven.

in simple terms. you can either agree that the old testament is a changed/faulty record of the prophets of old, not depicting what they really said{this is the only way to consistantly believe in both verses u quoted}

or you could say that the pharisees did not FOLLOW the old testament{this becomes irrelevant to the discussion though} and th new testament does indeed tell the same things as the old, but not the same thing as the ancient israelites of that time. and that you follow both and christ didnt come to destroy the OLD testament{but did destroy the teaching of the FOLLOWERS of the old testament}


you could simply see that christ is contradicting himself. as the old testament was supposedly{according to itself as reference} the only way to enter into heaven and if christ DIDNT contradict its message, the new testatement shouldnt have introduced any NEW ways of attaining heaven/benin saved or set up new criteria. as those effectively destroy the old. there is also the problem of differences in what is and isnt permitted. {not to mention the whole debate about the new testament not being the word of christ but that of paul and the other saints, with hardly any red letter material quoted in direct speech from christ himself}.

dont know how point 2 relates. it seems stupid to BRING a testament at all when youve already broken laws that christ himself did not SUPPOSEDLY come to break. and all is futile{hence no need for a NEW testament, it cant supercede the old, and the old is already not being followed} and contradicting BOTH testaments, a special shortcut has been made to heaven by forgetting the testaments{as its futile and every1 has broken their laws in your words} and just following and believing in the crucifixion of yeshua.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ How can you ever find happiness, when you think you are inherently evil? You are what you think; therefore, if you think you are good, but fall short, then good is what you will be. But if you think you are evil, then no one dieing on a cross can make you good.

We don't really think we're evil in the sense that I think you think. But we know that we sin every day all day, and we basically take comfort in the fact that God still loves us, making it okay that we sin. Also, we stay happy because we know that basically we can't help the fact that we're sinners, so why even bother thinking about it.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
We don't really think we're evil in the sense that I think you think. But we know that we sin every day all day, and we basically take comfort in the fact that God still loves us, making it okay that we sin. Also, we stay happy because we know that basically we can't help the fact that we're sinners, so why even bother thinking about it.

Then why bother even trying to do better? Just sin like crazy. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why bother even trying to do better? Just sin like crazy. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Why bath, why clean your room, why brush your team if it's going to get dirty again?

See how that logic is flawed, we have all sinned sometime or another. Hence why we have to cleanse the spirit.

We are not naturally evil like I said, just easily led astray.

I'd rather not be dictated to on what I can, and cannot do. Then have to apologise for my personal judgement, to get through some pearly gates, and in to the dominion of idiots and squares.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in simple terms. you can either agree that the old testament is a changed/faulty record of the prophets of old, not depicting what they really said{this is the only way to consistantly believe in both verses u quoted}

Christ was talking about the pharisee's, a strict sect of Judaism that didn't even follow the Torah. Instead they adhere'd to an oral tradtion created by Rabbi's known as the Talmud.


Originally posted by leonheartmm

or you could say that the pharisees did not FOLLOW the old testament{this becomes irrelevant to the discussion though} and th new testament does indeed tell the same things as the old, but not the same thing as the ancient israelites of that time. and that you follow both and christ didnt come to destroy the OLD testament{but did destroy the teaching of the FOLLOWERS of the old testament}


The Old Testament Gradually changes itself, and your taking the quote out of context. Judaism at that time barely adhere'd to the Torah/Tanankh.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Why bath, why clean your room, why brush your team if it's going to get dirty again?

See how that logic is flawed, we have all sinned sometime or another. Hence why we have to cleanse the spirit.

We are not naturally evil like I said, just easily led astray.

You didn't say:



Most people who say things like the quote above are not talking about bathing, cleaning your room or brushing your teeth. They are talking about the very nature of human existence. I fundamentally disagree with them. I believe that our basic nature is Buddhahood, not sin.

We do sin everyday, many times without knowing. Is discerning as that may seem it's the truth, and many times we do it unintentionally. It is ver y easy to sin, but that doesn't mean that man at heart is a sunful beast. If mans nature was to sin, then to not sin would be wrong.

Our True nature is to be close with God, that is the only was we'll ever be content and fulfilled.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
We do sin everyday, many times without knowing. Is discerning as that may seem it's the truth, and many times we do it without knowing. But, that doesn't mean that man is a sinful being. No, it simply shows how easy it is to sin. If mans nature was to sin, then to not sin would be wrong.

Our True nature is to be close with God, that is the only was we'll ever be content and fulfilled.

Please define for me what a sin is.

This thread makes my dick soft.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please define for me what a sin is.

Anything that:

-Disassociates one from one's self.
-Holds one down
-Traps the spirit
-Fundementally harms you
-Compromises the "Self"
etc.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Anything that:

-Disassociates one from one's self.
-Holds one down
-Traps the spirit
-Fundementally harms you

etc.

How do I do that everyday? Give me an example.

Also, there is no spirit or self.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How do I do that everyday?

You tell me, hell many times one sins without even knowing it.
Your sin is yours and yours alone in some respects. If you perform an act that fits the criteria I listed than your sinning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Also, there is no spirit or self.

Yes, there is.

Self=Consciosuness

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You tell me, hell many times one sins without even knowing it.
Your sin is yours and yours alone in some respects.



Yes, there is.

Self=Consciosuness


Humor me. Give me an example.

As far as self and or spirit, I will take the word of Buddha over yours. I mean no offence.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
One of the issues I have with some perspectives of Christianity is the idea that we as a human race are naturally evil, that our nature is a "sinful" one, and that no matter what good we do in our lives, we are still stained with an Earthly Evil that God cannot allow into Heaven.


Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.



This basically renders us powerless as a people, and demeans all our good actions and accomplishments as basically....worthless. We are a worthless people who are only worth something if God sees it that way.



There are those Christians, not all, but many, who beleive that we all deserve to suffer. That we, collectively, deserve no better. We do not deserve to be happy on Earth, only in Heaven.


There are those fundamentalists that see Hell as the only thing we truly deserve, eternal torment and damnation, and that to enter Heaven is to be spoiled with God's love, something we do not deserve.


What you do on Earth doesn't matter, because Earth is worthless. Your life means nothing, your joys, your family, your accomplishments.....nothing.....only Heaven matters.


***

Then there are those Christians, many Catholic, many Protestant, who escape that traditional Puritan-like beleif, and beleive that we all have God within us, and that we have incredible power, and that we can make a difference in this world, and what we do DOES matter here and now.


Universalist Christians, in fact, beleive we are all going to Heaven. A big stretch from traditional Christian thought. They believe in a God whose Love is non-judgemental, non-biased, not narrow - but wide. Absolute and truly unconditional, Ever-Forgiving, All-Loving, a God who only embraces our good, and understands our bad. A God who loves us for everything we are.

A God who does not want us to suffer, nor feels we deserve to ever.




Why is this Blasphemy to so many other Monotheistic Idealogies ?




Do some of you who beleive in God truly WANT people to suffer? Do you see suffering or punishment as an absolute necessity, hoping your deity will render out what you can't upon others ?



That's just unprogressive...why embrace suffering ? Why focus on it, even worse, why try to utilize it ?



How is it not cruelty to think that someone deserves to suffer ? Simply because they don't beleive in something ?


You Tell Me, because I will never understand that....

If that is what you think,Then you have no idea about Christains at all.jm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Humor me. Give me an example.

Hedonism, Health Risking Addiction, etc

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

As far as self and or spirit, I will take the word of Buddha over yours. I mean no offence.
Your entitled to your belief, but Buddhaism speaks of the conscouisness as well.

Originally posted by Xenogears
This thread makes my dick soft.

Stop stealing backfires posts you monkey.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
in simple terms. you can either agree that the old testament is a changed/faulty record of the prophets of old, not depicting what they really said{this is the only way to consistantly believe in both verses u quoted}

or you could say that the pharisees did not FOLLOW the old testament{this becomes irrelevant to the discussion though} and th new testament does indeed tell the same things as the old, but not the same thing as the ancient israelites of that time. and that you follow both and christ didnt come to destroy the OLD testament{but did destroy the teaching of the FOLLOWERS of the old testament}


you could simply see that christ is contradicting himself. as the old testament was supposedly{according to itself as reference} the only way to enter into heaven and if christ DIDNT contradict its message, the new testatement shouldnt have introduced any NEW ways of attaining heaven/benin saved or set up new criteria. as those effectively destroy the old. there is also the problem of differences in what is and isnt permitted. {not to mention the whole debate about the new testament not being the word of christ but that of paul and the other saints, with hardly any red letter material quoted in direct speech from christ himself}.

dont know how point 2 relates. it seems stupid to BRING a testament at all when youve already broken laws that christ himself did not SUPPOSEDLY come to break. and all is futile{hence no need for a NEW testament, it cant supercede the old, and the old is already not being followed} and contradicting BOTH testaments, a special shortcut has been made to heaven by forgetting the testaments{as its futile and every1 has broken their laws in your words} and just following and believing in the crucifixion of yeshua.
So many words with so little value.

Perhaps I could elaborate...to be more righteous than the Pharisees or the keepers of the law, assuming that they were following the Law as closely as they could, would mean that one would have to be perfect. This, of course, is not possible.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Hedonism, Health Risking Addiction, etc


Your entitled to your belief, but Buddhaism speaks of the consciousness as well.

Why is Hedonism a sin?

I can understand Health Risking Addiction, but I don't do that every day; not at all to be precise.

Can you give me the Sutra where Buddha talks about the consciousness?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why is Hedonism a sin?
Because your overall health should take presedence over you enjoymen.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I can understand Health Risking Addiction, but I don't do that every day; not at all to be precise.

That was an extreme example, and I do not know you that well for me to "Guess what sin you commit".

Just becuase we as humans sin everyday doesn't mean I know what sin you commit.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Can you give me the Sutra where Buddha talks about the consciousness?

The concept of Mind only or Consciousness only.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
Stop stealing backfires posts you monkey. 31dance

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Again, God is a construct, but from my studies I've come to realise that most of the time GOD is simply a natural occuring pheonamon that people worship. Reason being is because :

-Nutures
-Affects there life
- leads them to salvation
-Benefits them in the long run

Mordern perspectives are taken to litterally.




Thanks for the etymology, since it does my argument more justice. Anything that is not true to the "vital construct" should be considered a sin. Though, to be fair it depends on the God and principle's of said God. It's not an easy answer like most people seem to expect.

I'm aware that said construct/God can have a negative influence on people. But, at the end of the day that does not make it all "bad".

However, what if I find a religion tomorrow that says there are sins? The god of that religion has decreed humans cannot sin. Under your definition, there would be no sin.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, what if I find a religion tomorrow that says there are sins? The god of that religion has decreed humans cannot sin. Under your definition, there would be no sin.

To me sin is a concept that transcends religion. It's a universal truth rather than something some religion made up. I'm sure there will be a religion that has relative principles of living. But, in the end religion is a double edged sword, and like all things it can be used to help people or hurt them. Besides, organized religion is only the begining, and in the end it's the individual not the group that leads himself to salvation.

Like the etymology you used, to sin is to be untrue.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
To me sin is a concept that transcends religion. It's a universal truth rather than something some religion made up. I'm sure there will be a religion that has relative princiles of living. But, in the end religion is a double edged sword, and like all things it can be used to help people or hurt them. Besides, organized religion is only the begining, and in the end it's the individual not the group that leads himself to salvation.

Like the etymology you used, to sin is to be untrue.

To me sin is just a word that some people use to control others. I do not believe in a transcendental concept of sin. As far as the universe is concerned, it doesn't matter what we do. As far as Buddhism is concerned, it is all up to what you want. If you want to be happy, then Buddha has shown us a way, but if you want to suffer, then suffer. Some people want to do good and some want to do evil. Those who do good will have good in their lives, while those who do evil will have evil in their lives. There is nothing to be saved from.

Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?


That is not true at all.


Buddhism's prime goal is to overcome suffering, not endure it further. You do not know what you are talking about. If you have questions, please ask, Shaky or myself will be more than happy to answer


Hunger is intense, obsessive desire- it is a major cause of suffering because our happiness depends on what we can obtain and when we cannot obtain it, our happiness is put on hold


Please read the Concept of the Ten Worlds so you can understand what Buddhism is actually saying.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
It is true to that we are imperfect and inherently evil, however God doesn't believe that we should be unable to go to heaven because it. I guess I'll just explain my religion's interpretation of the Bible.

First, we don't believe that when you die you go to Heaven or Hell. Actually, we don't even believe in Hell, well, we believe in Hell but people don't go there.

People are inherently evil, and sin everyday. Because of this, there is nothing we can really do about this. God knows this. That's why he sent Jesus Christ down to die for us. his death had a symbolic meaning. Death is the ultimate payment for all of our sins. God's point is that because we sin all day everyday, and because there is nothing you can do about it, just die. If and when you die, all of your sins will be forgiven.

In our faith after Armageddon we don't go to Heaven, but stay here on Earth. It makes sense, because God's original intention was for us to live on the Earth peacefully and happily.

So, when Armageddon comes any and all of the evil people who haven't died and are still being "wicked" will be destroyed, while everyone who has died and the few people who are on the planet that love and worship god will live on Earth turned into a paradise forever.



How do you know people are inheritantly evil ? Have you met every single person on Earth ?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me sin is just a word that some people use to control others. I do not believe in a transcendental concept of sin.

Well, I do, let's just leave it at that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

As far as the universe is concerned, it doesn't matter what we do. As far as Buddhism is concerned, it is all up to what you want.



I strongly disagree, every action we do is important and has an effect. Look up the "Butterfly effect".


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If you want to be happy, then Buddha has shown us a way, but if you want to suffer, then suffer. Some people want to do good and some want to do evil. Those who do good will have good in their lives, while those who do evil will have evil in their lives. There is nothing to be saved from.

This isn't about human emotions or feeling good. Emotions are subjective to an individual and is easily manipulated. If you live your life mostly by how things feel to you than you would be unhealthy period. When I use the word good I reffering it to health.

For me, Religion is either helathy or unhealthy. If I want to feel good I'll watch a porno or something.

Good and Evil is in the eye's of men, it is subjective. What I speak of is objective, and transcend "feelings".

Why would you need religion to tell you how you feel?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I strongly disagree, every action we do is important and has an effect. Look up the "Butterfly effect".




As far as Earth goes, everything we do matters, yes.


As for as the Universe goes, nothing we do matters. At all.








Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
This isn't about human emotions or feeling good. Emotions are subjective to an individual and is easily manipulated. If you live your life mostly by how things feel to you than you would be unhealthy period. When I use the word good I reffering it to health.

For me, Religion is either helathy or unhealthy. If I want to feel good I'll watch a porno or something.

Good and Evil is in the eye's of men, it is subjective. What I speak of is objective, and transcend "feelings".

Why would you need religion to tell you how you feel?




Mental Pain exists far more than Physical Pain does. Mental Unhealthiness is far more common than Physical Unhealthiness. People suffer needlessly all the time.


Buddhism teaches us to not allow emotions to run our life, and to suffer as little as possible. Because of Buddhism, I have decided to train myself to only suffer when its worth it. Not to suffer over every little negative speech or action done upon me like I used to.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
As far as Earth goes, everything we do matters, yes.


As for as the Universe goes, nothing we do matters. At all.

That is absolutely false.












Originally posted by Goddess Kali

Mental Pain exists far more than Physical Pain does. Mental Unhealthiness is far more common than Physical Unhealthiness. People suffer needlessly all the time.

The two are interrealted my friend, they are not seperate. The feeling of Pain is a mental, but the damage is physical.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You cannot serperate the two.

Yeah, you can since the two are always conflciting. You can feel great, but be unhealthy or you can feel like shit and be healthy.

Your emotions aren't really relevant to your health.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yes, you can Shaky, people effect the health all the time whilst feeling good. The two are constantly fighting.

Thought becomes action.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thought becomes action.

Thought is not emotion

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
That is absolutely false.


Name one thing the Human Race has ever done that has had the slighest affect on the entire Universe ?


We have only affected Earth, we can only do good or harm to Earth. We can't do crap to the Universe itself.





Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
The two are interrealted my friend, they are not seperate. The feeling of Pain is a mental, but the damage is physical.




So then why do you separate emotion from health ? Emotion has everything to do with Health.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Thought is not emotion

Then what is emotion?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Your emotions aren't really relevant to your health.


ARE YOU KIDDING ME ?



Look up Depression and see what affects that has on your body and being.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then what is emotion?
Emotion is your reaction to whatever, thought or intellect is your intelligence.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
ARE YOU KIDDING ME ?



Look up Depression and see what affects that has on your body and being.
Sigh, Depression can easily be cured by Thought

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Sigh, Depression can easily be cured by Thought


Easily cured ? You clearly do not know about Depression and how it has affected millions of people worldwide, as well as be the main catalyst for eventual suicides.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Easily cured ? You clearly do not know about Depression and how it has affected millions of people worldwide, as well as be the main catalyst for eventual suicides.

I've been through depression before, your telling me depression is the cause of suicide rather than the influence.

Tell me, if I were to hang myself would it be because my options or a mental command?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Emotion is your reaction to whatever, thought or intellect is your intelligence.

In real life, you cannot separate the two. Buddhism calls it the Ten Worlds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
In real life, you cannot separate the two. Buddhism calls it the Ten Worlds.

Maybe not completely, but your emotions is not your intellect.
My emotions do not tie my shoes, read, or play sports.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali


So then why do you separate emotion from health ? Emotion has everything to do with Health.

I never siad they were inherently seperate, but your emotions isn't why your healthy.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Maybe not completely, but your emotions is not your intellect.
My emotions do not tie my shoes, read, or play sports.


Your emotions lead you to read certain titles, as well as help you determine which sports to play.




Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I never siad they were inherently seperate, but your emotions isn't why your healthy.


Fatal Diseases have been overcome thanks to positive emotion. Horrible diseases, such as cancer, have been caused by bombardment of negative emotion.


Please do your research.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Your emotions lead you to read certain titles, as well as help you determine which sports to play.
No, they do not. I use my intellect to decide which sport is best suited for me, and I use my intellect to navigate my way to a title.

My emotions help a little, but in the end it's intellect.
Emotion is at best used to help a little or influence change. Real change is done by intellect, not emotions. Your emotions are easilysusceptible to your intellect and the intellect of others is it any wonder why people who live by them suffer?

Stop basing your descions mostly on how you feel.






Originally posted by Goddess Kali

Fatal Diseases have been overcome thanks to positive emotion. Horrible diseases, such as cancer, have been caused by bombardment of negative emotion.


Please do your research.


Positive emotion that is dicatated by intellect, and how often does that happen?

Do you even know how many so called cancer cures are out there. We are nowhere near the cure for cancer. So, when positive emotions because the main reason for curing cancer, call me.

Emotions help us cope with disease, they do not cure in the long run or make us better objectively. That's what intelligence does, and it does not need emotion. Emotions are like the side kick or helper while intelligence is the real hero.

Goddess - I did leave an answer to your questions on the first page of this discussion.

Emotion and intellect, in my opinion, are very closely related, if not interrelated.

Think about a controversial issue of today, say... abortion. Did some emotions come along with that? Probably...

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Maybe not completely, but your emotions is not your intellect.
My emotions do not tie my shoes, read, or play sports.

Your intellect could not function without your emotions. The two cannot be separated in any real sense.

Originally posted by FeceMan
My view of Christianity is soundly biblical.

Matthew 5:17

Matthew 5:20

I get two things from this:

1. Christ is making fun of the Pharisees. They are hypocritical and self-righteous, not righteous.

2. Christ is saying that it is impossible to enter the kingdom of heaven because we've all broken commandments of the Law.

However, Christ's crucifixion is what has made us righteous enough to enter heaven.

Er Bro you not that stuff is made up? You do know that there are forgeries in the Bible dont you? Look up council of Nicea.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Maybe not completely, but your emotions is not your intellect.
My emotions do not tie my shoes, read, or play sports. Primarily limbic system, amygdala, forebrain as opposed to motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, Wernicke's area, cerebellum.
Originally posted by Goddess Kali
YFatal Diseases have been overcome thanks to positive emotion. Horrible diseases, such as cancer, have been caused by bombardment of negative emotion.

Please do your research. Oh I'd love to see these double blinded studies showing that happy thoughts can cause spontaneous remission in terminal cancer patients without any other treatment; or showing that as a result of angry thoughts can cause the spontaneous development of cancer without any biological basis. I'm sure these cases have been well documented, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. 313

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Primarily limbic system, amygdala, forebrain as opposed to motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, Wernicke's area, cerebellum.
Oh I'd love to see these double blinded studies showing that happy thoughts can cause spontaneous remission in terminal cancer patients without any other treatment; or showing that as a result of angry thoughts can cause the spontaneous development of cancer without any biological basis. I'm sure these cases have been well documented, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. 313

Read The Holographic Universe.

Originally posted by FeceMan
So many words with so little value.

Perhaps I could elaborate...to be more righteous than the Pharisees or the keepers of the law, assuming that they were following the Law as closely as they could, would mean that one would have to be perfect. This, of course, is not possible.

yes, to those who would avert their eyes from obvious facts. you contradicted your previous statments twice. first you admit to NOT knowing what they were actually following. then there is AGAIN the same problem of the PHARISEES being potentially perfect and christ telling you to BE BETTER. and on top of saying that he did not come to destroy. furthermore, it seems like you comlpetely avoided my post and what it addressed. and well, you havent given a reply to what i posted in any way.


and yes emotional distress/lack of sleep/depression acts like a carcinogen in two ways. it speeds up and somehow increases the random mutations taking plae in the body, secondly, it weaken the body' defence system/interconnection leading to a slowing of lysosomal activity and pagocytosis. your body uses these and other systems to constantly destroy cancerous cells/structures in the body which are always being created. this increases the likelyhood of the cancerous growths of escaping phagocytosis and thus increases the likelyhood for both benign and malignant tumours.

also, im a little confused here. are we talkin about thought and emotion ad literally defined by the buddha or general english language. OR as defined by psychologists, because in psychology the two have different meaning form their worldly counterparts.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have contradicted yourself. You have shown how Buddhism frees people from suffering not causes suffering. Again Buddhism is not the cause of suffering, but a way to be empowered over suffering.

How so ..free them from their desires by removing them ?Isnt that a suffer already ?

Arent the Buddhist priests called a beggars by the people because they're forbidden to to work or own property and obliged to feed themselves by going from door to door and begging with their bowls in their hands .In addition ,forbidden to marry or have any kind of family life haveing a hard bed to sleep on , eat only one meal a day .Now I know why cant find a fat Buddhist .. sorry kidding

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Here are the Eight Fold Path so you can read them and gain a better understanding.

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

The Noble Eightfold Path describes the way to the end of suffering, as it was laid out by Siddhartha Gautama. It is a practical guideline to ethical and mental development with the goal of freeing the individual from attachments and delusions; and it finally leads to understanding the truth about all things. Together with the Four Noble Truths it constitutes the gist of Buddhism. Great emphasis is put on the practical aspect, because it is only through practice that one can attain a higher level of existence and finally reach Nirvana. The eight aspects of the path are not to be understood as a sequence of single steps, instead they are highly interdependent principles that have to be seen in relationship with each other.

1. Right View

Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualise sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualisation in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration

The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

Ok .But how to know that this "Eight Fold Path" is exactly his saying and not for his followers?

Originally posted by Fatima
How so ..free them from their desires by removing them ?Isnt that a suffer already ?

Arent the Buddhist priests called a beggars by the people because they're forbidden to to work or own property and obliged to feed themselves by going from door to door and begging with their bowls in their hands .In addition ,forbidden to marry or have any kind of family life haveing a hard bed to sleep on , eat only one meal a day .Now I know why cant find a fat Buddhist .. sorry kidding



Ok .But how to know that this "Eight Fold Path" is exactly his saying and not for his followers?

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

--------------------------------------------------------------
hunger, misery and pain were a sideaffect of siddharta giving up food, ignorance and wordly pleasure. the NEGETIVITY associated with the giving up of those things was NOT what guided buddha. it was the trancendance of materialistic chains that stop most beings from reaching a higher level of existance, that finally allowed shakyamunisoon to break away from his human bond. atleast thats how i see it. however this world is, in part, physical. and in my oppinion, either not evolved/changed or inherently not fit enough to house a higher level ofconciousness. by its very nature, giving up on materialistic things will cause pain and suffering to the material body. as this dimension has holds on our body stronger than cages. but it IS necessary to make a differentiation between the SEPERATION/TRANCENDANCE and PAIN/SUFFERING, associated with that trancendance. the former{i think} plays a part in elevating you to higher level, the later, does not, and could ideally be done without, in an ideal world. also its good not to confuse the necessity to feal and understand the pain of others{needed for trancendance} with the pain of leaving materialistic bounds{not really a cause/need for trancendance, again, in my humble oppinion.}
furthermore, you should seperate, the pain that comes with the realisation{of some} that you are infact a prisoner of your desires{same way a human would hate to be a slave where its master had more control over it than its nature or conciounce}, and the pain that comes with LETTING GO of those desires which is due to addiction and habit. the former is probably needed in ascension. the later, it is your aim to overcome/avoid, and is not a necessity for trancendance.

furthermore, UNLIKE islam/christianity buddhism does NOT tell you that to you can only acheive enlightenment{actually not a concept found in islam or christianity} through sufferring. it might have been the legacy of buddhas to take alms, but thats a different thing. suffering isnt like the trial of sin/good deeds that allah places infront of you. its a wholly different concept. not sinister/totalitarian/tyrranically decisive, like that of islam. and noweher do i know of where suffering is directly proportional to enlightenmient . if indeed your suffering is causing you to lose focus and start hating/be scared of anything/cause disturbing internal conflict, your probably going AWAY from enlightenment, so no, that doesnt hold.

and while were on the subject, the LOWEST hell{islamic jahannum i mean} has peoples head cleaved in two, and their brains boiled with the sparks of hellfire as their fingers burn and ther bodies rot{and hellfire even the weakest is sinsiterly black and 5 times hotter than any fire eveer created in the univers,e including big bangs/sun etc}. this is done again and again forever. or how abaout the suicide, who will have an extra punishment of eternally, and continuously dying the same way he killed himself in real life.

or maybe ud prefer the real world. cutting hands for the slightest theivery. death by stoning for adultery or fornication on top pf 80 lashes each. encouragement to beat up children above 8 for not saying prayer. making women wear the burqa and have no contact with any men after 10 other than in the most crucial of matter. no punishment for marital rape. or the fact that any interest earnt on any money in real life will turn to molten metal and burn your entire body in the grave until the day of judgement. killing of infidels who say anything against the prophet. permissable beating of your wife if she does sumthing you dont like or is unislamic. denying sexuality until marriage. i cud go on and on. islamic is terrible when it comes to ABUSING the body and mind.

---------------------------------------------------------------


you didnt reply to the above post. and stereotypically, you have the same confined mindset of a muslim. not being able to conceptualise anything outside the GOD IS SUPREME/HE SENT MESSENGERS WHO WERE ALL MUSLIMS/THEIR FOLLOWERS CHANED THEIR TRUE, DIVINELY REVEALED MESSAGE.

that doesnt hold true for buddhism. it would be better to call buddhism a philosophy and way of life as opposed to the percieved view of RELEGION. buddha's message was not like muhammad's or jesus's. it does not normally have absolutes. your just tryin to undermine the argument by thinking that gautama was the percieved LEADER of buddhism and people in the relegion percieve him and follow his every word as they feared and followed muhammad. that isnt true. if you knew his teachings youd see how completely wrong ur viewpoint is. there were many buddha before him. buddha is just one who has trancended his human existance and reached enlightenment of his own right. he was the supreme buddha of out time{in buddhism} and teached people ways to reach buddha hood and end the suffering which came from attachment to matterialistic things. to reach nirvana{which is NOT anything like heaven}. he is not WORSHIPPED as the supreme god like allah or whatever. he is only praised and his teachings followed. there is no such thing as GOD in buddhism. and by your argument, how do we know that the quran is god's word revealed through muhammad. after all, we can not verify the existance of MUHAMMAD let alone ALLAH! we have the sutra's and buddha's saying which hint at him being the one to have said them. there is also, the date of these sayings, which are the same as the time of buddha. also, if youd study the relegion and see, there are not only sayings of BUDDHA in buddhism, but of others too, who have tried to or believed to reach buddhahood. buddhism does not condemn the addition of other like your relegion does. it is a PHILOSOPHY which is not in any way, in the same basket as the abrahamic relegions.

Originally posted by Fatima

Ok .But how to know that this "Eight Fold Path" is exactly his saying and not for his followers?

This is whats going to happen next. Your going to talk about the hadiths and how they have a chain of narration, that proves that Mohammed said such and such and because of this Islam is the best religon in the world and we should all convert.

there are many different kind of buddhist priests. your referring to the tibettan. people who CHOOSE to dedicate their lives to acheiving buddhahood, generally follow his examples of taking alms{calling them beggars and laughing about it only shows your contempt and disgust in trying to demeen them}. if youve read about buddha, after he reached enlightenment, he did start eating food a lot more{althoug not enough to INDULGE in it} heck, he accepted kheer and milk from a girl just alittle after he reached elightenment. and really, if BUDDHISTS were forbidden to marry? how is it that tibet still managed to have a younger generation?!?! it is only MONASTS who choose to not marry. im not saying i agree with all that, but it definately has its significance and truth. furthermore one should have the right knowledge about sumthing they choose to critique. and it is all rather rich coming from one who believes in a tyrranical relegion like islam.

edit.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote: (post)
Originally posted by Fatima
Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?

--------------------------------------------------------------
hunger, misery and pain were a sideaffect of siddharta giving up food, ignorance and wordly pleasure. the NEGETIVITY associated with the giving up of those things was NOT what guided buddha. it was the trancendance of materialistic chains that stop most beings from reaching a higher level of existance, that finally allowed shakyamunisoon to break away from his human bond. atleast thats how i see it. however this world is, in part, physical. and in my oppinion, either not evolved/changed or inherently not fit enough to house a higher level ofconciousness. by its very nature, giving up on materialistic things will cause pain and suffering to the material body. as this dimension has holds on our body stronger than cages. but it IS necessary to make a differentiation between the SEPERATION/TRANCENDANCE and PAIN/SUFFERING, associated with that trancendance. the former{i think} plays a part in elevating you to higher level, the later, does not, and could ideally be done without, in an ideal world. also its good not to confuse the necessity to feal and understand the pain of others{needed for trancendance} with the pain of leaving materialistic bounds{not really a cause/need for trancendance, again, in my humble oppinion.}
furthermore, you should seperate, the pain that comes with the realisation{of some} that you are infact a prisoner of your desires{same way a human would hate to be a slave where its master had more control over it than its nature or conciounce}, and the pain that comes with LETTING GO of those desires which is due to addiction and habit. the former is probably needed in ascension. the later, it is your aim to overcome/avoid, and is not a necessity for trancendance.

furthermore, UNLIKE islam/christianity buddhism does NOT tell you that to you can only acheive enlightenment{actually not a concept found in islam or christianity} through sufferring. it might have been the legacy of buddhas to take alms, but thats a different thing. suffering isnt like the trial of sin/good deeds that allah places infront of you. its a wholly different concept. not sinister/totalitarian/tyrranically decisive, like that of islam. and noweher do i know of where suffering is directly proportional to enlightenmient . if indeed your suffering is causing you to lose focus and start hating/be scared of anything/cause disturbing internal conflict, your probably going AWAY from enlightenment, so no, that doesnt hold.

and while were on the subject, the LOWEST hell{islamic jahannum i mean} has peoples head cleaved in two, and their brains boiled with the sparks of hellfire as their fingers burn and ther bodies rot{and hellfire even the weakest is sinsiterly black and 5 times hotter than any fire eveer created in the univers,e including big bangs/sun etc}. this is done again and again forever. or how abaout the suicide, who will have an extra punishment of eternally, and continuously dying the same way he killed himself in real life.

or maybe ud prefer the real world. cutting hands for the slightest theivery. death by stoning for adultery or fornication on top pf 80 lashes each. encouragement to beat up children above 8 for not saying prayer. making women wear the burqa and have no contact with any men after 10 other than in the most crucial of matter. no punishment for marital rape. or the fact that any interest earnt on any money in real life will turn to molten metal and burn your entire body in the grave until the day of judgement. killing of infidels who say anything against the prophet. permissable beating of your wife if she does sumthing you dont like or is unislamic. denying sexuality until marriage. i cud go on and on. islamic is terrible when it comes to ABUSING the body and mind.

---------------------------------------------------------------


you didnt reply to the above post. and stereotypically, you have the same confined mindset of a muslim. not being able to conceptualise anything outside the GOD IS SUPREME/HE SENT MESSENGERS WHO WERE ALL MUSLIMS/THEIR FOLLOWERS CHANED THEIR TRUE, DIVINELY REVEALED MESSAGE.

that doesnt hold true for buddhism. it would be better to call buddhism a philosophy and way of life as opposed to the percieved view of RELEGION. buddha's message was not like muhammad's or jesus's. it does not normally have absolutes. your just tryin to undermine the argument by thinking that gautama was the percieved LEADER of buddhism and people in the relegion percieve him and follow his every word as they feared and followed muhammad. that isnt true. if you knew his teachings youd see how completely wrong ur viewpoint is. there were many buddha before him. buddha is just one who has trancended his human existance and reached enlightenment of his own right. he was the supreme buddha of out time{in buddhism} and teached people ways to reach buddha hood and end the suffering which came from attachment to matterialistic things. to reach nirvana{which is NOT anything like heaven}. he is not WORSHIPPED as the supreme god like allah or whatever. he is only praised and his teachings followed. there is no such thing as GOD in buddhism. and by your argument, how do we know that the quran is god's word revealed through muhammad. after all, we can not verify the existance of MUHAMMAD let alone ALLAH! we have the sutra's and buddha's saying which hint at him being the one to have said them. there is also, the date of these sayings, which are the same as the time of buddha. also, if youd study the relegion and see, there are not only sayings of BUDDHA in buddhism, but of others too, who have tried to or believed to reach buddhahood. buddhism does not condemn the addition of other like your relegion does. it is a PHILOSOPHY which is not in any way, in the same basket as the abrahamic relegions.

Dont worry I will replay on that post soon ..

Cant wait.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Read The Holographic Universe. Good book. thumbup1
It would make sense that the universe is highly interconnected, even from a conventional perspective.

Originally posted by Fatima
How so ..free them from their desires by removing them ?Isnt that a suffer already ?

Arent the Buddhist priests called a beggars by the people because they're forbidden to to work or own property and obliged to feed themselves by going from door to door and begging with their bowls in their hands .In addition ,forbidden to marry or have any kind of family life haveing a hard bed to sleep on , eat only one meal a day .Now I know why cant find a fat Buddhist .. sorry kidding



Are u familiar in chinatown? u could see around Chinese fat Buddha and with a festive and great smile..how poor u didn't know that..

I think the ramadan is one i could not bear at with so much do's and dont's including sex or eating foods which characterise extreme asceticism. The Buddha reject such practices and instead found the truth of the Middle Way that lead one to spiritual freedom or enlightenment.

Originally posted by Fatima
How about the suffering in Buddhism ? ..why should people suffer only because they have desires ?







Well , according to Buddhism (not me), hunger, misery and pain guide the way to the truth and Buddhists believe that the more pain they endure, and the more hunger and misery they suffer, the sooner they become enlightened. But this is not enlightenment; it is an inhuman life of self-abuse and slavery .See how could they taking responsibility for their sufferings if their religion told them to do so ?




Many things occur in the course of life. There are sufferings and joys, tailwinds and headwinds. All such phenomena provide opportunities for us to make the true entity of the world of Buddhahood/enlightenment in our lives shine; we can use everything that happens to expand our happiness.

Worth is not found in joy alone. Nor is success the only valuable outcome. Suffering is the mother of realization; worries and failures, so long as we are not defeated by them, enable us to deepen our faith. Our sufferings become the raw material with which to construct our happiness.

Also, Common mortals thought of this world as the world of suffering or enduring and most religions try to seek otherwordly happiness after death. Human beings have a certain escapist tendency; we are inclined to believe that if we could just get away from reality and go to some different realm, then we could become happy(i.e. god's paradise or heaven). This is nothing but just illusory dreams. Illusory happiness can never be anything more than an illusion.

On the other hand, the Buddha sees this world(the world we are now) as enjoyable and happy place and which is itself the pure or heavenly land. Thus, he exclaimed himself during the final years of his preaching:


For asamkhya kalpas
constantly I have dwelled on Holy Eagle Peak
and in various other places.
When living beings witness the end of a kalpa
and all is consumed in a great fire,
this, my land, remains safe and tranquil,
constantly filled with heavenly and human beings.
The halls and pavilions in its gardens and groves
are adorned with various kinds of gems.
Jeweled trees abound in flowers and fruit
where living beings enjoy themselves at ease.
The gods strike heavenly drums,
constantly making many kinds of music.
Mandarava blossoms rain down,
scattering over the Buddha and the great assembly....

My pure land is not destroyed,
yet the multitude see it as consumed in fire,
with anxiety, fear and other sufferings
filling it everywhere.
These living beings with their various offenses,
through causes arising from their evil actions,
spend asamkhya kalpas
without hearing the name of the Three Treasures....."

-Lotus Sutra-

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your intellect could not function without your emotions. The two cannot be separated in any real sense.

I never stated they were seperate as in completely different, but they are not the samething.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Oh I'd love to see these double blinded studies showing that happy thoughts can cause spontaneous remission in terminal cancer patients without any other treatment; or showing that as a result of angry thoughts can cause the spontaneous development of cancer without any biological basis. I'm sure these cases have been well documented, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. 313

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your intellect could not function without your emotions.

Correction, Your emotions always function despite using your intellect. This isn't about emotional functions, it's about not letting your emotions control your actions. Also, realising that your emotions is not the same as your thoughts.


Sorry for the triple post.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Correction, Your emotions always function despite using your intellect. This isn't about emotional functions, it's about not letting your emotions control your actions. Also, realising that your emotions is not the same as your thoughts.


Sorry for the triple post.

You are dissecting emotion and thought without really knowing what they are. Without emotion you cannot have thought, and without thought you cannot have emotion.





Without emotions you would not have any context to be able to think.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are dissecting emotion and thought without really knowing what they are.

I do know what thought is, and the definition you just used spported my definition of thought. Now showme where it states that one needs to feel in order to think?

Do I need to feel happy to think happy thoughts and Vice Versa?


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Without emotion you cannot have thought, and without thought you cannot have emotion.


What?

You do not have to think to feel.
You do not have to feel to think.

But, if I'm wrong prove it, bcause your claiming they are the same with no proof.




Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Without emotions you would not have any context to be able to think.

Context is not soley based on feeling, infact context soley based on feeling is entire subjective.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I do know what thought is, and the definition you just used supported my definition of thought. Mow shopw me where it states that one needs emotion to think?

What?

You do not have to think to feel.
You do not have to feel to think.

But, if I'm wrong prove it.

That is not true.

A person who can think without emotion is called menially ill. I thought we were talking about health, not obscure possibilities.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A person who can think without emotion is called menially ill. I thought we were talking about health, not obscure possibilities.

Please tell me what psychosis a person who thinks without feeling has.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Please tell me what psychosis a person who thinks without feeling has.

Serial killer. However, they also have some emotions, just not the right ones. You are right, I can't think of any time that a person thinks that they don't have some kind of underlying emotion.

You can't have thought without some kind of emotion. So you tell me what kind of thought you can have without emotion.

Originally posted by Fatima
Dont worry I will replay on that post soon ..

confident in your knowledge on comparitive relegion huh. ho ho ho, i cant wait miss zakir naik .

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Serial killer. However, they also have some emotions, just not the right ones. You are right, I can't think of any time that a person thinks that they don't have some kind of underlying emotion.

Serial killers motives are different in each case.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You can't have thought without some kind of emotion. So you tell me what kind of thought you can have without emotion.

Of course, your going to have emotions when you think I never disagree'd with that notion. Emotions are important in life, and I'm not denying that. But, to claim that emotion is indispensable from thought is false. Infact, emotions are easily sayed with basic mental techniques such as reframing. I do it all the time, and it's very easy. You will always have emotions, that's normal. But, letting your emotions govern any thought process is an automatic failure. Emotions are ghenerally developed at birth, there simply tools used for simple problems. If I'm hurt my arm, I can use my emotions to pin point the problem area. But, my emotions will not heal my injury. They may help, but that's the most they can do. Real action is done by thought.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Serial killers motives are different in each case.




Of course, your going to have emotions when you think I never disagree'd with that notion. Emotions are important in life, and I'm not denying that. But, to claim that emotion is indispensable from thought is false. Infact, emotions are easily sayed with basic mental techniques such as reframing. I do it all the time, and it's very easy. You will always have emotions, that's normal. But, letting your emotions govern any thought process is an automatic failure. Emotions are ghenerally developed at birth, there simply tools used for simple problems. If I'm hurt my arm, I can use my emotions to pin point the problem area. But, my emotions will not heal my injury. They may help, but that's the most they can do. Real action is done by thought.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your intellect could not function without your emotions. The two cannot be separated in any real sense.

I am glad you finally agree with me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Serial killer. However, they also have some emotions, just not the right ones. You are right, I can't think of any time that a person thinks that they don't have some kind of underlying emotion.

You can't have thought without some kind of emotion. So you tell me what kind of thought you can have without emotion.

actually you can. emotions, unrelated to or from the thought can creep in simply because the same body{albeit different components, i.e. higher brain vs basic nerve centres/reflexes/physical reactions} is thinking and having biological processes which psychologically, are a major component of emotions{i.e. activity of the symp/auto nervous system due to hormonal changes like adrenaline}. for instance, your could be fealing the shivers{component of emotion} and thinking about the shapes of pineabpples. the difference with an emotion{which at the same time contains a cognitive and physical component} is that the two are not interraletad, just inter observable. one does not cause, or is caused by the other. they are not intertwined the same way an amotion is. its the worst of existances, but fact is, it happens, and for one reason or another, there are people who live with it in both, partiality, and utter completeness. and your right, once the condition develops, among MANY who do feal emotions at rare times, the emotions are often of a wrong kind reguarding their personal situation and perception.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am glad you finally agree with me.


I only agree with the later, the two cannot be seperated in respects to you. But, you can think without emotion, but your will be effected by your thought.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I only agree with the later, the two cannot be seperated in respects to you. But, you can think without emotion, but your will be effected by your thought.

It has never happened to me. I am always in one of the ten worlds (emotional states of being). Thoughts come and go, but emotional states of being always paint my world.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It has never happened to me. I am always in one of the ten worlds (emotional states of being). Thoughts come and go, but emotional states of being always paint my world.

Allowing your emotions govern your actions and paint your perspective of the world. That's what children do, since they have not developed there intellect to understand the world.

If you believe emotions to be thought, than you must also accept that perspective and Truth are Subjective like emotions.

Because in the end humans always adhere to the emotions that gratify them.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Allowing your emotions govern your actions and paint your perspective of the world. That's what children do, since they have not developed there intellect to understand the world.

If you believe emotions to be thought, than you must also accept that perspective and Truth are Subjective like emotions.

Because in the end humans always adhere to the emotions that gratify them.

You speak without understanding, and like a child lash out at what you cannot grasp.

You can never be without the ten worlds. Because you live in the ocean does not mean you cannot move the water.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
Instead of being percieved as a powerful race of beings who have the ability to transcend the impulses of survival and do a great many things (like Buddhism, Hinduism, some sects of Catholicism, and other religions/philosophies have), we are generally seen as a naturally wicked people who are unworthy of God's Graces, yet God will overlook our "disgusting ways" and our lack of worth, and indulge us with his generosity, saving us from an eternal torment which we all naturally deserve, if we accept Christ as savior.
Catholics are Christians.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You speak without understanding, and like a child lash out at what you cannot grasp.
I'm not the one with emotions based actions and thoughts. That's you shaky, I've given you time and you failed to prove your point. So, in the end it's simply a belief like God, with nothing to substantiate it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

You can never be without the ten worlds. Because you live in the ocean does not mean you cannot move the water.

Yes, that is your belief and you have no Science behind it.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm not the one with emotions based actions and thoughts. That's you shaky, I've given you time and you failed to prove your point. So, in the end it's simply a belief like God, with nothing to substantiate it.



Yes, that is your belief and you have no Science behind it.

You are the one who resorted to calling me a child. That sounds like emotions to me.

Please give me an example of a thought that is not derived from an emotion.

Also, you might want to read up on the ten world, so you know what I'm talking about.

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are the one who resorted to calling me a child. That sounds like emotions to me.

I used it in my analogy, I honestly was not trying to insult you. But, if you take offense then I apologise.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Please give me an example of a thought that is not derived from an emotion.

The decscion to:

-Shower
-Tie your shoe
-Refrain from a pleasurable activity
-Excersize
-Brainstorming

Infact, I could easily change my emotions by reframing.




Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Also, you might want to read up on the ten world, so you know what I'm talking about.

http://www.sgi-usa.org/buddhism/faqs/tenworlds.htm

Okay, I'll check it out.

Basically, our emotions (Which is what the Ten worlds appear to encompass) are dictated by our external world.




In other words these four worlds are connected to thought, and not feeling. Furthermore, they seem be regarded on a higher plateu than the other six which was my point.



So, these emotions are limited versus thinking/Reason/Thought.

Thought and emotion are both just synaptic activity. doped

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Thought and emotion are both just synaptic activity. doped

Are they the samething like Shaky's trying to say?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Are they the samething like Shaky's trying to say?

I never meant to say they are the same thing, just that you cannot talk about one without inferring to the other.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Thought and emotion are both just synaptic activity. doped

synaptic activity gives rise/sustainance to though and emotion. but it is not thought and emotion in itself. if it were then thought and emotion would merely be the PHYSICAL/BEHAVIOURAL consequence of psuedo thought/emotion. it would SEEM like we were thinking , extrapolating from physical phenomenon. but in reality, we would have no conciousness which was further conciously AWARE of the existance of the very conciousness in question. same goes for thoughts and emotions. our conciounce is AWARE of our thoughts and emotion and thus they can not simply be attributed in their totality, to synaptic activity. thats the physical beginning maybe, but not the whole story.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never meant to say they are the same thing, just that you cannot talk about one without inferring to the other.

I agree with that, but to what degree is dependent on context.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
synaptic activity gives rise/sustainance to though and emotion. but it is not thought and emotion in itself. if it were then thought and emotion would merely be the PHYSICAL/BEHAVIOURAL consequence of psuedo thought/emotion. it would SEEM like we were thinking , extrapolating from physical phenomenon. but in reality, we would have no conciousness which was further conciously AWARE of the existance of the very conciousness in question. same goes for thoughts and emotions. our conciounce is AWARE of our thoughts and emotion and thus they can not simply be attributed in their totality, to synaptic activity. thats the physical beginning maybe, but not the whole story.

Synaptic activity seems to be what emotion is in my opinion, but not thought.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Are they the samething like Shaky's trying to say? They're interrelated but the way you're framing it they're primarily effected by different areas of the brain.

Tying one's shoe would involve the motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, cerebellum etc.

Feeling scared would involve the frontal cortical regions, limbic system, amygdala and probably areas involved in memory encoding and retrieval etc.

They're still interrelatable though.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They're interrelated but the way you're framing it they're primarily effected by different areas of the brain.

Tying one's shoe would involve the motor cortex, somatosensory cortex, cerebellum etc.

Feeling scared would involve the limbic system, amygdala and probably areas involved in memory encoding and retrieval etc.

They're still interrelatable though.

Oh, okay, thanks.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
synaptic activity gives rise/sustainance to though and emotion. but it is not thought and emotion in itself. if it were then thought and emotion would merely be the PHYSICAL/BEHAVIOURAL consequence of psuedo thought/emotion. it would SEEM like we were thinking , extrapolating from physical phenomenon. but in reality, we would have no conciousness which was further conciously AWARE of the existance of the very conciousness in question. same goes for thoughts and emotions. our conciounce is AWARE of our thoughts and emotion and thus they can not simply be attributed in their totality, to synaptic activity. thats the physical beginning maybe, but not the whole story. Punctuation. I have no idea what you just said, but it sounded a lot like psychobabble.

Conscious thought in itself is simply physical neural activity.

Well, I'm not a materialist and will not adhere to that. But, emotions strike me as simple reaction to neural activity versus thought.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh I'd love to see these double blinded studies showing that happy thoughts can cause spontaneous remission in terminal cancer patients without any other treatment; or showing that as a result of angry thoughts can cause the spontaneous development of cancer without any biological basis. I'm sure these cases have been well documented, peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals. 313



http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/emotions-and-cancer-healing.html


http://www.innerself.com/Health/emotions_cancer.htm

Under emotional distress, the brain may signal the adrenal glands to produce chemicals called corticosteroids, hormones which weaken the immune response. Cancer-related processes are accelerated in the presence of these chemicals1 as well as other stress hormones like prolactin.2 Certain cancers have also been associated with distressing life events. In one study, the risk of developing breast cancer was five times higher if the woman had experienced an important emotional loss in the six years prior to the discovery of the tumor.3


Toxic Emotions
Since the 1970s, research in the field of psychoneuroimmunology has documented direct links between emotions and biochemical events in the body, thereby establishing on a scientific basis what folk healers have always known: emotions can manifest themselves as physical symptoms. Noted women's health expert, Christiane Northrup, M.D., of Yarmouth, Maine, coined the term toxic emotions to indicate the powerful, strongly held, and often unconsciously active beliefs and emotions that help generate symptoms that keep illnesses in place. "A thought held long enough and repeated enough becomes a belief," says Dr. Northrup. "The belief then becomes biology." In the view of Dr. Northrup as well as other alternative practitioners working with cancer patients, beliefs and emotions can be legitimate toxins, contributing to an overall weakening of the immune system.4
...




X...you being a self-proclaimed scientist, I'm very surprised you are completely unaware of the effects emotions and mentality have on the physical body

Originally posted by leonheartmm
Synaptic activity gives rise/sustainance to thought and emotion. But, it is not thought and emotion in itself. If it were then thought and emotion would merely be the PHYSICAL/BEHAVIOURAL consequence of psuedo thought/emotion. It would SEEM like we were thinking, extrapolating from physical phenomenon. But, In reality we would have no conciousness which was further conciously AWARE of the existance of the very conciousness in question. Same goes for thoughts and emotions. our conciounce is AWARE of our thoughts and emotion and thus they can not simply be attributed in their totality, to synaptic activity. thats the physical beginning maybe, but not the whole story.

Fixed it for ya, and I agree.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali

X...you being a self-proclaimed scientist, I'm very surprised you are completely unaware of the effects emotions and mentality have on the physical body

Not one persone here claimed that emotions do not effect the body, but you claimed that emotions could cure cancer!

Where's the evidence for that?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Really, I find that Urizen/Kali has such a misguided view of Christianity and is so set in his prejudices that he will never get over them. I have explained on numerous occasions why Christians don't follow the rules and regulations of the Old Testament, but he continually uses that as anti-Christian ammunition.


I am not talking about the Bible, I am talking about the popular fundamentalist beleif that many, not all Christians hold, as I have said before. The beleif that we are naturally wicked people and deserve to go to Hell.