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

please meditate

silence

God is beyond human understanding

All religions are true
they speak of different aspect of the

One Reality
Onewithout a second


you cannot know yourself
the Subject cannot be objectified
never

it all started with the I...
who am I?
Egoless silence

That (Self) is ultimately formless

be joyful be blissfull be graceful

just be
but unfortunately this natural state has been lost
and it has been replaced with all this hogwash

just be as Heart

are you born?

you are not divided from That

if you are born you have to die

we are all one



- bal





I found this message interesting. I found it on a Hindu/Kali dedication forum. Could it be true that all religions are essentially right ? Perhaps the evolution of religions caused the contradiction of details, but perhaps the essense of every religion truly coincides ?


I spoke to a man who is both Christian and Hindu. He worships Jesus Christ and Mother Kali. He beleives that God, in its true form, is unidentifiable by any individual human being.

He beleives that God manifests in different forms: Jesus, Kali, Buddha, Krishna, Apollo, Shiva- different archetypes which are diverse minds can understand and relate with.


HE feels it is okay to recognize God/Universe in different ways. We all have different perspectives, even those of us with same religions/outlooks.

What say you ?

I'd say he is wrong.

However, I do agree that many religions come from one. That is that many religions other than Judaism/Christianity are a corruption of faith that occurred in the Garden and that people had strayed even by the seventh generation from Adam.

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

- Bill Hicks


My New Age crap pwns yours.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd say he is wrong.

However, I do agree that many religions come from one. That is that many religions other than Judaism/Christianity are a corruption of faith that occurred in the Garden and that people had strayed even by the seventh generation from Adam.

You do realize that some of those other "corrupt" religions predate Judaism? There's also good evidence that Judaism borrowed certain aspects from some of those older religions, so who's plagiarizing/corrupting who...

Yeah, I thought of that when I just started puberty, or rather, just learnt of the 6 main religions. Maybe I'm just smart like that.


...I later realised I was wrong and was just making it up based on the assumption that it's likely.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd say he is wrong.

However, I do agree that many religions come from one. That is that many religions other than Judaism/Christianity are a corruption of faith that occurred in the Garden and that people had strayed even by the seventh generation from Adam.


What you seem to be saying is:


1) Christianity/Judaism are the only religions which aren't corrupt.

2) Judaism is older than all other religions, including all pagan forms of paganism.

3) Adam and Eve existed





I really hope you thought about this....

Originally posted by Nellinator
I'd say he is wrong.

However, I do agree that many religions come from one. That is that many religions other than Judaism/Christianity are a corruption of faith that occurred in the Garden and that people had strayed even by the seventh generation from Adam.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20011106.html

http://www.geocities.com/wiccanresourcepage/wiccanresourcesfaqpage.html


If you check out this site, you will understand something else:


While Wicca is roughly 50-60 years old, witchcraft can be traced all the way back to the stone age.


Wicca is a modern version of witchcraft, an ancient pagan religion. Both utilize the worship of a God and Goddess...Mother Earth and the Father- the "Horned God" of the Hunt.

If you want to get technical, the oldest religion is witchcraft. It's the earliest known form of paganism.

Did somebody say VIBRATIONS???

Are all beliefs right???

Atheism: There is no God

Christianity: There is a God.

Islam: Allah is the last prophet.

Bat Sh*t Crazies: Flubnaald!!!!

BSC's (subgroup: Nellinator): However, I do agree that many religions come from one. That is that many religions other than Judaism/Christianity are a corruption of faith that occurred in the Garden and that people had strayed even by the seventh generation from Adam.



...nah. They aren't all right.

But the idea that they're interrelated isn't a new one. The notion that you can boil many stories, myths, and religions down to basic core elements that stretch across time, location, and culture is basically Joseph Campbell's life condensed into a sentence.

Well Hinduism is the only religion that views all religions as a valid pathway to Heaven, so it's not surprising he thinks that.

To answer your question: it depends who you ask. But a lot of religions emphatically state that they're the only valid way.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What you seem to be saying is:


1) Christianity/Judaism are the only religions which aren't corrupt.

2) Judaism is older than all other religions, including all pagan forms of paganism.

3) Adam and Eve existed





I really hope you thought about this....
1) Obviously.

2) Actually no. Judaism didn't start until after the Torah was written. I believe it is the preservation of the original faith which dates back to Adam. Obviously, there are many faiths that are too old to be accurately dated as the faith must precede the text and nearly all texts speak of people that followed their faith long before the text was written.

3) Yes.

adam and eve probly didnt exist. just based on evolution and prehistoric remains id say more than 2 were the originals

Originally posted by chickenlover98
adam and eve probly didnt exist. just based on evolution and prehistoric remains id say more than 2 were the originals If you only knew.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you only knew.

He does know, but you obviously know sweet FA

All religions are equal. They are all equally correct, and equally wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All religions are equal. They are all equally correct, and equally wrong.

Well, that's a view...of course not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But a view.

Originally posted by Nellinator
If you only knew.

Nah, the burden of proof isn't on evolutionary biologists that back their sh*t up, it's on internet posters that decide Adam and Eve were real people and the Book of Genesis is literal fact....which is an opinion that has long since been thrown out the window by all but the most extreme and stubborn Christian sects.

Also, I want to hit everything in Bardock's sig...especially the 2nd girl. Looks like that hot chick from "How I Met Your Mother".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that's a view...of course not supported by any evidence whatsoever. But a view.

The idea that one or more religion is more corrected then any other is also a view with no evidence. My view is more reasonable, and will not cause any wars.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that one or more religion is more corrected then any other is also a view with no evidence. My view is more reasonable, and will not cause any wars.

How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.


Btw you are right digi. It's Alyson Hannigan

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.



Really and truly they dont contradict each other because they are not supposed to be taken literially.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Really and truly they dont contradict each other because they are not supposed to be taken literially.
Who supposes that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.


Btw you are right digi. It's Alyson Hannigan

You did not understand what I wrote.

They are equal; equally correct and equally incorrect. I did not say what parts where right and or wrong. I simply said that the some total of rights and wrongs are equal. One religion is not better then any other. They are all inventions by humans that work within a culture. I am not counting cults in this, but only organized religions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You did not understand what I wrote.

They are equal; equally correct and equally incorrect. I did not say what parts where right and or wrong. I simply said that the some total of rights and wrongs are equal. One religion is not better then any other. They are all inventions by humans that work within a culture. I am not counting cults in this, but only organized religions.

I understood that, I said it is unlikely. And not counting cults is even weirder. Why do you assume Religions that they fundamentally such different things (except if you interpret the shit out of them maybe) when added up have the exact same amount of truth. And how would you even count how much truth they have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I understood that, I said it is unlikely. And not counting cults is even weirder. Why do you assume Religions that they fundamentally such different things (except if you interpret the shit out of them maybe) when added up have the exact same amount of truth. And how would you even count how much truth they have.

I never said anything about truth.

I believe that religion is a natural process that gives humans an evolutionary advantage because it allows us to cooperate within a social structure. A religion that has lasted over time, has only done so because it has found an equilibrium. Cults or new religions that are unstable, will find equilibrium or fail.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When I say "truth" in reference to religion, I am not talking about ordinary truth, like A+B=C. I am using the "code" word "truth" that most fundamentalist use. That is why I internally did not use the word truth in this case. The word correct and incorrect or right and wrong are relative terms that depend on what you are talking about.

I never said how correct, or even if they are correct. 0=0 is still correct and equal. Which was my point all along. Good job getting it at last.

Still, your view is not very reasonable at all. Nor very clearly portrayed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which was my point all along. Good job getting it at last.

Still, your view is not very reasonable at all. Nor very clearly portrayed.

Your insults are of no value. I see by your turn around that you finally get what I was saying.

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Obviously.

2) Actually no. Judaism didn't start until after the Torah was written. I believe it is the preservation of the original faith which dates back to Adam. Obviously, there are many faiths that are too old to be accurately dated as the faith must precede the text and nearly all texts speak of people that followed their faith long before the text was written.

3) Yes.


1) Then you are blind, violence and conflict have been very common aspects of Christianity and Judaism for millenia. Are not violence and conflict forms of corruption ?


2) Okay, atleast we can come to some agreement there. Judaism is not the oldest religion. There were religions prior to it.


3) There's absolutely no evidense to support Adam and Eve's existance though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your insults are of no value. I see by your turn around that you finally get what I was saying.

I did not turn around. What you said initially is still idiotic. What you added now is trivial. But you don't even grasp half of what you are saying yourself. You might just be the most illogical poster on all of these forums.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did not turn around. What you said initially is still idiotic. What you added now is trivial. But you don't even grasp half of what you are saying yourself. You might just be the most illogical poster on all of these forums.

Your childish personal attacks are of no value and are off topic. Please go to the Off topic forum with your immature rantings.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.


I think you misunderstand my opening statement (although I know this post was addressed to shakymunison and not myself).


I am not suggesting that all religions are 100% correct. You already know that I have intense doubts in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And I don't take Hinduism literally, yet respect the lessons of the mythologies.


What I am suggesting is that the essence of each religion is a reflection of truth that we may or may not inheritantly know. Fiction isn't "false". Fiction is our intepretation of non-fiction.

Christianity beleives in God, while Buddhism doesn't. Yet both claim that each and every human being is responsible for his or her own life/fate.

Buddhism forbids violence while Islam may utilize it as a last resort. However, both religions teach the value of self control.



What I am trying to say is that when we hear or read far-fetched stories from a religious source (such as gods and goddesses), we need to look at them as mythology. Mythology is meant to reflect human nature and the nature of the recognizable world. They can still very much apply to our lives.


I have a more focused idea of why I beleive all religions link to some common truth, but in order for me to explain I would have to go into my own personal beliefs, and I'd rather not do that unless asked to.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think you misunderstand my opening statement (although I know this post was addressed to shakymunison and not myself).

It was indeed addressed at Shakya, good of you to realize. That's probably why you shouldn't judge in how far I understood your post.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I am not suggesting that all religions are 100% correct. You already know that I have intense doubts in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And I don't take Hinduism literally, yet respect the lessons of the mythologies.

Never thought you did.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What I am suggesting is that the essence of each religion is a reflection of truth that we may or may not inheritantly know. Fiction isn't "false". Fiction is our intepretation of non-fiction.

Fiction can also just be fiction without any interpretation of non fiction. That being the way it is anyways, of course Religions try to explain what they see, that's trivial.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny

Christianity beleives in God, while Buddhism doesn't. Yet both claim that each and every human being is responsible for his or her own life/fate.

Calvinists don't. Oh my me, calvinists don't count I take it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Buddhism forbids violence while Islam may utilize it as a last resort. However, both religions teach the value of self control.

Satanism does not. (so do a bunch of other religions, I suppose)

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What I am trying to say is that when we hear or read far-fetched stories from a religious source (such as gods and goddesses), we need to look at them as mythology. Mythology is meant to reflect human nature and the nature of the recognizable world. They can still very much apply to our lives.

Trivial point. They can also absolutely not apply to our lives.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I have a more focused idea of why I beleive all religions link to some common truth, but in order for me to explain I would have to go into my own personal beliefs, and I'd rather not do that unless asked to.

Well, they try to explain a truth that might be common.

I just don't see how the point is important at all. It is either likely wrong in the extreme or absolutely fundamental and unimportant in the watered down version.


Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

Originally posted by Bardock42
... Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It was indeed addressed at Shakya, good of you to realize. That's probably why you shouldn't judge in how far I understood your post.


But your argument sort of contradicts my own. That is why I responded.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Fiction can also just be fiction without any interpretation of non fiction. That being the way it is anyways, of course Religions try to explain what they see, that's trivial.



All art is influenced. You cannot create something new without having already been exposed to prior experience.

Whether or not fiction is intended to be based on non-fiction, it still always will reflect recognizable truth, to some person somewhere.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Calvinists don't. Oh my me, calvinists don't count I take it.



Satanism does not. (so do a bunch of other religions, I suppose)


Well...I could have made my post even longer by including the hundred other religions which also exist



Originally posted by Bardock42
Trivial point. They can also absolutely not apply to our lives.


It depends who you are. I am sure that if you read up on Greek/Hindu mythos, or mythos of any culture, or read into the Bible, Quran, Vedas, or Lotus Sutra, you can find something that applies. In some way.


You aren't that special Bardock. Your life is still connected to everyone else's, past and present.



Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, they try to explain a truth that might be common.


okay




Originally posted by Bardock42
I just don't see how the point is important at all. It is either likely wrong in the extreme or absolutely fundamental and unimportant in the watered down version.


You don't see the point to religion, or you don't see the point to trying to coorelate them ?




Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

Holy sh*t I didn't see this coming..why do you attack him so ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But your argument sort of contradicts my own. That is why I responded.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
All art is influenced. You cannot create something new without having already been exposed to prior experience.

Whether or not fiction is intended to be based on non-fiction, it still always will reflect recognizable truth, to some person somewhere.


Maybe, but that is a very different point to "All fiction interprets non-fiction".

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Well...I could have made my post even longer by including the hundred other religions which also exist

Yeah, the ones for example that contradict what you meant to show.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends who you are. I am sure that if you read up on Greek/Hindu mythos, or mythos of any culture, or read into the Bible, Quran, Vedas, or Lotus Sutra, you can find something that applies. In some way.

That's what I was saying. Some applies some doesn't.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You aren't that special Bardock. Your life is still connected to everyone else's, past and present.

Never said I was.


Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You don't see the point to religion, or you don't see the point to trying to coorelate them ?

I see a point in looking for similarities. I don't see the point in claiming they are all the same though. To believe in logically contradicting believes and saying it's just different interpretations is something I don't subscribe to. That's why I concede to some of your points, cause I agree with them, the full picture as given by your first post I deny though, same with Shakya, what he said I did not fully agree with, I did agree with some of the additions he gave later though (usually because they are so fundamental and unnecessary to mention). On top of that a problem Shakya has in my opinion is that he lacks the ability to express himself accurately (it might be on purpose, I have seen it before), that's why I get into arguments with him partly and partly because his views are usually unfounded and ridiculous.


Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Holy sh*t I didn't see this coming..why do you attack him so ?

I finished my (on-topic) post to you and then went back only to see his idiotic evaluation of my posts. I found it unfair and decided to explain to him what I think of him and that not I am the one that goes off-topic, but that he does so by dodging valid points. He also annoys me, but that's beside the point.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
please meditate

silence

God is beyond human understanding

All religions are true
they speak of different aspect of the

One Reality
Onewithout a second


you cannot know yourself
the Subject cannot be objectified
never

it all started with the I...
who am I?
Egoless silence

That (Self) is ultimately formless

be joyful be blissfull be graceful

just be
but unfortunately this natural state has been lost
and it has been replaced with all this hogwash

just be as Heart

are you born?

you are not divided from That

if you are born you have to die

we are all one



- bal





I found this message interesting. I found it on a Hindu/Kali dedication forum. Could it be true that all religions are essentially right ? Perhaps the evolution of religions caused the contradiction of details, but perhaps the essense of every religion truly coincides ?


I spoke to a man who is both Christian and Hindu. He worships Jesus Christ and Mother Kali. He beleives that God, in its true form, is unidentifiable by any individual human being.

He beleives that God manifests in different forms: Jesus, Kali, Buddha, Krishna, Apollo, Shiva- different archetypes which are diverse minds can understand and relate with.


HE feels it is okay to recognize God/Universe in different ways. We all have different perspectives, even those of us with same religions/outlooks.

What say you ?

I'd say that as long as a person is trying to improve themselves, or rather, makes themselves a better person and have better control over negative human traits, they are on right path to righteousness. I could care less about religions of people as long as their religions is helping them become better people, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Even then, there are some negative religions out there that profess righteousness and kindness when they are spreaders of hate...not my idea of benevolence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd say that as long as a person is trying to improve themselves, or rather, makes themselves a better person and have better control over negative human traits, they are on right path to righteousness. I could care less about religions of people as long as their religions is helping them become better people, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Even then, there are some negative religions out there that profess righteousness and kindness when they are spreaders of hate...not my idea of benevolence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

- Bill Hicks


My New Age crap pwns yours. tool uses that qoute in a song, third eye i think, it's a pretty messed up theory but could be true

droolio

Originally posted by The big EH
tool uses that qoute in a song, third eye i think, it's a pretty messed up theory but could be true They were friends I believe.

maybe wouldn't doubt it maynard is awesome

The first girl on your sig is the hottest droolio

i really hope your talking to bardock

I don't believe in this kind of stories related to religion gods and the other stuff.In my opinion these are just the super natural and baseless stories.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Nah, the burden of proof isn't on evolutionary biologists that back their sh*t up, it's on internet posters that decide Adam and Eve were real people and the Book of Genesis is literal fact....which is an opinion that has long since been thrown out the window by all but the most extreme and stubborn Christian sects.

Also, I want to hit everything in Bardock's sig...especially the 2nd girl. Looks like that hot chick from "How I Met Your Mother". I never attacked evolutionary biology or called invalid did I? Someone is only seeing in dichotomies, a pity really. Also, you said Genesis was literal? And what Christian sects threw it out the window? Hardly any that I can think of. Don't most Americans believe the earth in 6000 years old?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) Then you are blind, violence and conflict have been very common aspects of Christianity and Judaism for millenia. Are not violence and conflict forms of corruption ?


2) Okay, atleast we can come to some agreement there. Judaism is not the oldest religion. There were religions prior to it.


3) There's absolutely no evidense to support Adam and Eve's existance though.
1) No, they aren't. They may be signs of corruptions amongst subscribers which may or may not be a reflection on the religion, or the violence and conflict may be justified, in which case it is definitely not corruption.

3) There is no evidence against it either, unless one can only see in dichotomies, which would be sad and close minded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who supposes that?

Could you please elaborate on what your point is exactly. I dont want to reply to your post if I have misunderstood you.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Could you please elaborate on what your point is exactly. I dont want to reply to your post if I have misunderstood you. Who decides whether Religious texts are supposed to be taken literally?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who decides whether Religious texts are supposed to be taken literally?

The people who use common sense decide that its not supposed to be taken literially. Why do you think its the fundies who are the ones who always take religon literially? Their idiots you know and I know it.

Hell if you did thorough research into religon you would come to the same conclusion. Just because somebody has an opinion doesnt mean its valid. Some people are of the opinion that Columbus discovered America.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The people who use common sense decide that its not supposed to be taken literially. Why do you think its the fundies who are the ones who always take religon literially? Their idiots you know and I know it.

Hell if you did thorough research into religon you would come to the same conclusion. Just because somebody has an opinion doesnt mean its valid. Some people are of the opinion that Columbus discovered America. I see, but even with intense interpretation Religious texts do contradict each other don't you think?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I see, but even with intense interpretation Religious texts do contradict each other don't you think?

Yes but anything can contradict itself. If you look at the fundamentals all religons are the same.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Yes but anything can contradict itself. If you look at the fundamentals all religons are the same.

As in....they are a Religion?

Wow. You just changed my whole life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
As in....they are a Religion?

For example Islam says there is only one god, that contradicts Hindusim were they believe in many? It doesnt because Hindus believe that the many gods are aspects of one god.

Ok Islam then contradicts paganism because they believe in many gods as well? If you analyse paganism deeply you will see that pagans believe that everything is infinite, whats the connection with Islam? Dont muslims believe that God is infinite? If hes infinite doesnt that mean hes everywhere so doesnt that mean there is divinity in everything? Logically yes but of course fundies will argue otherwise.

Hell if you look at some interpretations of Hinduism is not far removed from some stuff Dawkins has said about god.

Originally posted by Bardock42

Wow. You just changed my whole life.

Theres no need for the sarcasm im not trying to convert you, its just a discussion.

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) No, they aren't. They may be signs of corruptions amongst subscribers which may or may not be a reflection on the religion, or the violence and conflict may be justified, in which case it is definitely not corruption.

3) There is no evidence against it either, unless one can only see in dichotomies, which would be sad and close minded.



1) That is such a cop-out. You know very well there has been much injustified violence and conflict as a result of Christianity (Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, Native American Holocaust-to name a few).


If This is not corruption, then how are Judaism and Christianity non-corrupt while Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and all other religions are ?


2) But you see....Adam and Eve have nothing but the Bible's fables to go by. And Evolution..well...has loads and loads of physical and scientific evidense to go by.

Originally posted by Alfheim
For example Islam says there is only one god, that contradicts Hindusim were they believe in many? It doesnt because Hindus believe that the many gods are aspects of one god.

Ok Islam then contradicts paganism because they believe in many gods as well? If you analyse paganism deeply you will see that pagans believe that everything is infinite, whats the connection with Islam? Dont muslims believe that God is infinite? If hes infinite doesnt that mean hes everywhere so doesnt that mean there is divinity in everything? Logically yes but of course fundies will argue otherwise.

Hell if you look at some interpretations of Hinduism is not far removed from some stuff Dawkins has said about god.



Theres no need for the sarcasm im not trying to convert you, its just a discussion.

Total different thing. Either claim that they are fundamentally the same thing or that some connections can be drawn. Giving a few connections does not prove that they are fundamentally the same.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
1) That is such a cop-out. You know very well there has been much injustified violence and conflict as a result of Christianity (Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Crusades, Native American Holocaust-to name a few).


If This is not corruption, then how are Judaism and Christianity non-corrupt while Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and all other religions are ?


2) But you see....Adam and Eve have nothing but the Bible's fables to go by. And Evolution..well...has loads and loads of physical and scientific evidense to go by.
1) The Bible told them to do it? No, it's a reflection of the individuals acting behind the curtain of religion. Not unlike how the terrorist attacks are not a corruption of Islam, but an example of corrupt members of Islam.

I'm not talking about moral corruption, I'm talking about corruption of truth.

2) Exactly what I said. You only see this in a dichotomy, which is why you are missing out.

Originally posted by Nellinator
...I'm not talking about moral corruption, I'm talking about corruption of truth...

Christianity is not the truth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christianity is not the truth. Welcome to rhetoric 101.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Welcome to rhetoric 101.

Rhetoric - speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively.

You are not making your point clear.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Rhetoric - speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively.

You are not making your point clear. He is actually. You just don't understand it.

Deliberate miss communication has always been apart of churches..

Originally posted by Bardock42
He is actually. You just don't understand it.

No. He is assuming that I care to persuade him in any way.

Well, when some people have a cave named after them, they can't communicate much better......

Bardock

Originally posted by debbiejo
Well, when some people have a cave named after them, they can't communicate much better......

Bardock thank you Deb

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
thank you Deb No prob.

*passes the peace pipe*

Originally posted by debbiejo
No prob.

*pisses*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


sadangel


















Ladies don't piss, they tinkle.......

Originally posted by debbiejo
Deliberate miss communication has always been apart of churches.. Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. He is assuming that I care to persuade him in any way. With you guys no one has try to miscommunicate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
With you guys no one has try to miscommunicate.

Don't be jealous.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't be jealous. Using jealous in a way solely defined by you, again?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Using jealous in a way solely defined by you, again?

No, I meant it in the normal way.

Jealous - feeling bitter and unhappy because of another's advantages, possessions, or luck.

That sounds like you to me...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I meant it in the normal way.

Jealous - feeling bitter and unhappy because of another's advantages, possessions, or luck.

That sounds like you to me... H-how?

Originally posted by Bardock42
H-how?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Whose advantage, possession or luck am I jealous of?


Are you startled by people questioning the inane bullshit you talk, cause it does seem to happen way too rarely around here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Whose advantage, possession or luck am I jealous of?


Are you startled by people questioning the inane bullshit you talk, cause it does seem to happen way too rarely around here.

You are confused. I didn't want to follow you on the off topic road you were heading down. Just because you cannot understand what I say, most of the time, does not mean anything to me. Please, let us get back on topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are confused. I didn't want to follow you on the off topic road you were heading down. Just because you cannot understand what I say, most of the time, does not mean anything to me. Please, let us get back on topic. You are a trolling ******* that doesn't understand what he talks about half the time.

And Religions are not all the same. Even though most probably try to explain the same thing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And Religions are not all the same. Even though most probably try to explain the same thing.

All religions were created by humans. In that way, they are the same.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All religions were created by humans. In that way, they are the same. All Religions are called Religions. All Religions are either

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.



Oh, I'm sorry, I'm talking to Mr. Moron. I'll make my point more clear...they do not have the same message. They say fundamentally different things. They are not...the same...as a whole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...they do not have the same message. They say fundamentally different things. They are not...the same...as a whole.

I never said they did...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said they did...


Good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good.

Now, are you going to apologize?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now, are you going to apologize? No.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No.

Ignored.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All religions are equal. They are all equally correct, and equally wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ignored. Ha, see you ****ing *******, you did say it, I remember. You stupid little troll.

My point still stands. Maybe try to refute it instead of lying?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ha, see you ****ing *******, you did say it, I remember. You stupid little troll.

My point still stands. Maybe try to refute it instead of lying?

You don't understand.



is not equal to



To say they are the same is ignorant.

Explain what you mean with

"All religions are equal. They are all equally correct, and equally wrong."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Explain what you mean with

"All religions are equal. They are all equally correct, and equally wrong."

Religions are all made by humans. No religion has a real truth or divinity. The true nature of reality cannot be understood by humans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Religions are all made by humans. No religion has a real truth or divinity. The true nature of reality cannot be understood by humans.

If you honestly believe that about all religions, then why do you adhere to one? That really makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If you honestly believe that about all religions, then why do you adhere to one? That really makes no sense at all.

Because Buddhism is right for me.

If all religions are equally wrong, then they must be equally right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because Buddhism is right for me.

If all religions are equally wrong, then they must be equally right. You think they are all fully wrong?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because Buddhism is right for me.

If all religions are equally wrong, then they must be equally right.

That's such a self-defeating way of thought.

You think Buddhism is a false religion, yet you still belong to it. Unless of course, you're one of those coffee shop Buddhists that reads about it in the library and "meditates" on the weekends.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think they are all fully wrong?

I think he made that pretty clear.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota

I think he made that pretty clear.

He's not in the business of making things clear.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You think they are all fully wrong?

No. equally wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's such a self-defeating way of thought.

You think Buddhism is a false religion, yet you still belong to it. Unless of course, you're one of those coffee shop Buddhists that reads about it in the library and "meditates" on the weekends.



I think he made that pretty clear.

There is no such thing as a false religion. A false religion would require a true religion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No. equally wrong.

What's the difference?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as a false religion. A false religion would require a true religion.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He's not in the business of making things clear.

I now see what you mean.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What's the difference?



I am not saying that a religion is wrong or right, because I do not know something that does not exist.

There is no such thing as a true religion.

Let me help you. Religion is a man made thing like a cup of coffee. Is coffee right or wrong? It might be right for you, but wrong for someone else.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not saying that a religion is wrong or right, because I do not know something that does not exist.


That's a presumptuous statement.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

There is no such thing as a true religion.

One of them is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's a presumptuous statement.



One of them is.

I believe you are wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe you are wrong.

Why do you belong to a religon if you think its wrong?

"I don't think that Jesus is really God's son, but I still call myself a Christian".....doesn't make much sense does it?

Actually you don't need a true religion. You just need a truth. And I suppose then you'd have the hypothetical true religion.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why do you belong to a religon if you think its wrong?

"I don't think that Jesus is really God's son, but I still call myself a Christian".....doesn't make much sense does it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because Buddhism is right for me.

If all religions are equally wrong, then they must be equally right.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually you don't need a true religion. You just need a truth. And I suppose then you'd have the hypothetical true religion.

Truth is relative, therefore there cannot be an absolute truth.

Which implies that they're all equally wrong.

And that still didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Truth is relative, therefore there cannot be an absolute truth. You do not know that. Personally I believe in an absolute truth actually.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Which implies that they're all equally wrong.

And that still didn't answer my question.

What is your question?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do not know that. Personally I believe in an absolute truth actually.

OK. I don't care.

Now we must remember that Bardock has his own religion...........

Hey, sweety?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK. I don't care. Yeah, you care about making stupid unfounded statements and behaving like a retarded hypocrite.Originally posted by debbiejo
Now we must remember that Bardock has his own religion...........

Hey, sweety? Hardly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, you care about making stupid unfounded statements and behaving like a retarded hypocrite. Hardly.

Again, you don't understand.

What I am saying is that you can believe what you wish. I am not bothered in any way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again, you don't understand.

What I am saying is that you can believe what you wish. I am not bothered in any way. That's a) not what you were saying, b) of no matter to the conversation at hand and c) your trollish attempt at doding any reasonable points presented to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a) not what you were saying, b) of no matter to the conversation at hand and c) your trollish attempt at doding any reasonable points presented to you.

That is what I was saying. I was simply putting it as hard as I could because you do not deserve to be treated civilly. You are a rude person with few redeeming qualities. The reason for this is because all you do is insult me. If you can do nothing but insult me, I can treat you like a turd.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is what I was saying. I was simply putting it as hard as I could because you do not deserve to be treated civilly. You are a rude person with few redeeming qualities. The reason for this is because all you do is insult me. If you can do nothing but insult me, I can treat you like a turd. No, you said something else. What you say and think you say are not the same things. You, just plainly, said something completely different.

I am not only insulting you (*******), I also give points and reasons you disregard time and time again, which leads me to calling you names (idiot), as I am frustrated with your dodging ways (retard).

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, you said something else. What you say and think you say are not the same things. You, just plainly, said something completely different.

I am not only insulting you (*******), I also give points and reasons you disregard time and time again, which leads me to calling you names (idiot), as I am frustrated with your dodging ways (retard).

As soon as you insult me, you fail. You could have the best points in the world, but when you insult me, you fail.

Do you still not get it? People will turn you off and not listen to you if you insult them. That is a fact of life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As soon as you insult me, you fail. You could have the best points in the world, but when you insult me, you fail.

Do you still not get it? People will turn you off and not listen to you if you insult them. That is a fact of life. No, just idioty, like you, will. And I feel better when calling morons, like you, morons, moron.

Though your trolling really frustrates me, so I think I will just ignore you for now. I mean, most people know you are a ****ing idiot, no one needs me to point it out, a little chat with you is the best convincing one could expect.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, just idioty, like you, will. And I feel better when calling morons, like you, morons, moron.

Though your trolling really frustrates me, so I think I will just ignore you for now. I mean, most people know you are a ****ing idiot, no one needs me to point it out, a little chat with you is the best convincing one could expect.

Forum Guidelines & Rules

Courtesy
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.

Reported

You fail

"Equal" and "same" are not the same adjective.


Example: Men and women are not the same, but they are equal.


I agree with Shaky All religions are equal, even though they are not the same. One religion cannot possibly work for every single person. That is why religions vary. That is why there are sects.

That is also why some people of a religion will have doubts, while others of that same particular religion will swear that it works, or that it is completely true.



Shakymunison's point about Buddhism not being "completely" true is one which Bardock and Quiero do not understand, so let me explain:


Siddhartha Gautama-the Buddha- has made many claims. His claims about mental and physical health prove to be true, as meditation and clarity of mind have huge positive effects on one's vitality and health.

His claim about mental suffering is also true. Desire- actually, obsessive desire (not just impulse or curiosity) cause a great deal of suffering, and learning to let go is the healthiest thing one can do.

There is a lot about Buddhism I discovered to be true, in regard to behavior and quality of life.


However, remember...Buddha also made other claims: Anatta- No Self. The claim that we do not have a soul. However, this also can clash with the concept of Reincarnation. When asked directly if the "self" truly exists or not, Siddhartha would not answer. To directly DENY the existance of self, is to still REGARD the existance of self. To put a "positive" or "negative" on the existance of self/soul is to suggest that it exists in the first place.


Buddha may be wrong about those things...and if he is, it is not great dilemma. Buddha taught that the "mysteries" of the universe do not matter. What matters, above all else, is the alleviation of suffering. The ultamate respect and compassion for all living things.


Any question, debate, or conflict that is not related to the cessation of suffering, or the treatment of people/animals is not a question/debate/conflict worth tackling with such stress. Those questions, according to the Buddha, are not important.


That is the basis of Buddhism. Treatment of yourself, treatment of other people, and having peace between mind, "self" and body.

It works for Shakymunison. It's been working for me little by little by little.


That is why people like he and myself adhere to Buddhism, even though it may not be completely accurate.

i respect any religion/faith/belief that promotes right conduct. unfortunate that the term 'right' is different for every individual.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
"Equal" and "same" are not the same adjective.


Example: Men and women are not the same, but they are equal.


I agree with Shaky All religions are equal, even though they are not the same. One religion cannot possibly work for every single person. That is why religions vary. That is why there are sects.

That is also why some people of a religion will have doubts, while others of that same particular religion will swear that it works, or that it is completely true.



Shakymunison's point about Buddhism not being "completely" true is one which Bardock and Quiero do not understand, so let me explain:


Siddhartha Gautama-the Buddha- has made many claims. His claims about mental and physical health prove to be true, as meditation and clarity of mind have huge positive effects on one's vitality and health.

His claim about mental suffering is also true. Desire- actually, obsessive desire (not just impulse or curiosity) cause a great deal of suffering, and learning to let go is the healthiest thing one can do.

There is a lot about Buddhism I discovered to be true, in regard to behavior and quality of life.


However, remember...Buddha also made other claims: Anatta- No Self. The claim that we do not have a soul. However, this also can clash with the concept of Reincarnation. When asked directly if the "self" truly exists or not, Siddhartha would not answer. To directly DENY the existance of self, is to still REGARD the existance of self. To put a "positive" or "negative" on the existance of self/soul is to suggest that it exists in the first place.


Buddha may be wrong about those things...and if he is, it is not great dilemma. Buddha taught that the "mysteries" of the universe do not matter. What matters, above all else, is the alleviation of suffering. The ultamate respect and compassion for all living things.


Any question, debate, or conflict that is not related to the cessation of suffering, or the treatment of people/animals is not a question/debate/conflict worth tackling with such stress. Those questions, according to the Buddha, are not important.


That is the basis of Buddhism. Treatment of yourself, treatment of other people, and having peace between mind, "self" and body.

It works for Shakymunison. It's been working for me little by little by little.


That is why people like he and myself adhere to Buddhism, even though it may not be completely accurate.


I agree, however, if truth is relative, and there is no absolute truth, then it would be wrong to think that Buddhism was absolutely true. Buddhism is relatively true.

No, Buddhism is absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, Buddhism is absolutely wrong.


Why do you think that ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Why do you think that ?

You didn't understand me, I meant Buddhism is just not right in any way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You didn't understand me, I meant Buddhism is just not right in any way.


Explain

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Explain Lets get back on topic please.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Lets get back on topic please.


We are on topic. This thread is discussing Truth and Religion.



If you feel that Buddhism (or Christianity, or Hinduism, etc.) isn't correct, or non truthful, for whatever reason, then please explain why.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
We are on topic. This thread is discussing Truth and Religion.



If you feel that Buddhism (or Christianity, or Hinduism, etc.) isn't correct, or non truthful, for whatever reason, then please explain why. I think you are dragging it off. You seem to have had a different topic in mind. So, Buddhism is absolutely wrong. And lets leave it at that.


Do you think all Religions are equally right or wrong? Or the same in other ways? And in what ways?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you are dragging it off. You seem to have had a different topic in mind. So, Buddhism is absolutely wrong. And lets leave it at that.

Okay. But if you could PM me on your spare time as to why you think it is absolutely wrong, please do. I am curious to know why you think that.




Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think all Religions are equally right or wrong? Or the same in other ways? And in what ways?


Not equally.


I personally feel that Buddhism is far more correct than Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. Hinduism is the root of Buddhism, but Hinduism has its own conflicts to weed out. I also think Wicca is pretty close, but they also incoorporate mythology into thier beliefs.

However, I do not feel that Buddhism has reality "solved" or totally figured out.


I feel it touches what we need to know, but barely gets through the surface of what the truth to reality can be.


I will explain in another post, since as of now, I am being rushed off my school's computer lab lol--sorry, i promise you i will address this soon !

Originally posted by Bardock42
Bait. You mean I wanted to bait you. There's really no need to bate you any further.

Good, you are giving up.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Good, you are giving up. No idea what you mean.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is your question?

Ok, you believe Buddhism to be the only valid religion, in other words, the only correct spiritual path, right? Now if the answer is no, why on earth do you practice it?

That's no different than me adhering to and practicing Christianity WHILE acutally believing that it's no more or less correct than the Ancient Roman religion. It would make no sense, and be a big waste of time.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, you believe Buddhism to be the only valid religion, in other words, the only correct spiritual path, right? Now if the answer is no, why on earth do you practice it?


My God is not better then your God, and your God is not better then my God.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's no different than me adhering to and practicing Christianity WHILE acutally believing that it's no more or less correct than the Ancient Roman religion. It would make no sense, and be a big waste of time.

In my eyes, all religions are equal. I believe that if you followed the Ancient Roman religions or Christianity or Buddhism, and you are true to yourself, you would gain the same thing in the end. It all depends on you. I could never be a Christian again. Not after all the evil I have seen, in my personal life, form Christians onto Christians. Perhaps Buddhism would equally not be right for you.

If believing in something that cannot be supported by science helps you from wasting your time, then that is what is right for you. However, I could never believe in a supernatural world, because it takes away from the absolute beauty of the universe.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My God is not better then your God, and your God is not better then my God.


You don't have a god, remember?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

In my eyes, all religions are equal. I believe that if you followed the Ancient Roman religions or Christianity or Buddhism, and you are true to yourself, you would gain the same thing in the end.

Are you sure you're not a Hindu? Because Hinduism is the only religion that believes that "no matter who you pray to, all your mail ends up in the same mailbox".

But that point of view is simply flawed because the Koran telling it's followers that likening other gods unto God will not take you to the same place as sacrificing a goat to Zeus.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

If believing in something that cannot be supported by science helps you from wasting your time, then that is what is right for you.

The fact the that the world's greatest scientists don't know or can't prove where life came from or how the universe came into being is what implies to me that God exists.

The atom itself is not alive, but cell it's in is.

And please don't tell me you're comparing a planet in the universe to an atom in a body. That's just an erroneous comparison.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The atom itself is not alive, but cell it's in is.

And please don't tell me you're comparing a planet in the universe to an atom in a body. That's just an erroneous comparison.

So, you are made up of nonliving stuff? All of the materials, like atoms and molecules, that make up your body are not alive?

Therefore, the only part of you that is alive is the trillions of cells that are made of nonliving stuff?

There seems to be a connection between nonliving stuff and living stuff. All living stuff are made of nonliving stuff. However, planets are made of nonliving stuff, but you don't believe they are alive.

Have you ever heard of the Gaia Theory?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, planets are made of nonliving stuff, but you don't believe they are alive.


They're not alive because they don't use energy or reproduce.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

Have you ever heard of the Gaia Theory?

No I haven't; humor me.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're not alive because they don't use energy or reproduce.



No I haven't; humor me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

You have to educate yourself.

There are extremeophiles that set dormant for years without using energy or reproducing. Are they dead?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And please don't tell me you're comparing a planet in the universe to an atom in a body. That's just an erroneous comparison.


Why is that such a bad anology ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Why is that such a bad anology ?

I suppose it was a perfectly sound analogy in Shaky's mind since he believes that the universe is a living entity

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I suppose it was a perfectly sound analogy in Shaky's mind since he believes that the universe is a living entity


How is beleiving that the universe is a living entity itself any more far-fetched or illogical than your Biblical God ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
How is beleiving that the universe is a living entity itself any more far-fetched or illogical than your Biblical God ?

It's baseless. Is there any scripture that talks about the universe being alive? Or is it one guy's idea?

Furthermore, there's a lot vacuum in the universe; why would a lifeform have pockets of nothingness?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's baseless. Is there any scripture that talks about the universe being alive? Or is it one guy's idea?

Furthermore, there's a lot vacuum in the universe; why would a lifeform have pockets of nothingness?

You believe a book, and you think I'm a nut.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's baseless. Is there any scripture that talks about the universe being alive? Or is it one guy's idea?





Scripture makes something valid ? Wow....that's new !

You'd accept what other people have implanted into your head...the idea that white man with a long beard living in the sky created the universe-okay, that's logical, but then you laugh at the idea that the universe itself may be sentient..that may be God itself.

You accept one far-fetched idea because it's been fed to you by society, but when a new "far-fetched" idea comes along, you're like "no way..that's baseless".




Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Furthermore, there's a lot vacuum in the universe; why would a lifeform have pockets of nothingness?

Between our molecules and atoms there are empty spaces as well.


I still find it funny that you can beleive that a single male being created the entire universe in all its complexity, but you can't grasp the possibility that perhaps the universe is itself an organism....hmmm....

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny



Scripture makes something valid ? Wow....that's new !

You'd accept what other people have implanted into your head...the idea that white man with a long beard living in the sky created the universe-okay, that's logical, but then you laugh at the idea that the universe itself may be sentient..that may be God itself.

You accept one far-fetched idea because it's been fed to you by society, but when a new "far-fetched" idea comes along, you're like "no way..that's baseless".






Between our molecules and atoms there are empty spaces as well.


I still find it funny that you can beleive that a single male being created the entire universe in all its complexity, but you can't grasp the possibility that perhaps the universe is itself an organism....hmmm....

Who said I laughed at the idea, ey? I'm open to the possibility of the universe being alive, but what more does he have than his own idea? Scripture is a lot more to go by, than one guy's guess.

Furthermore, I believe the Bible on my own accord. Never suggest I'm a sheep again.