Everything about Buddhism

Author: Critical-Tim
Philosophy
reason
Buddhism

Posts

Total: 136
Topic's author
#1
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Topic Description:
I would like to build a strong understanding of the ideas and beliefs related to the subject religion.


Please help productively refine my and others' understanding by following these guidelines:
  • NUMBER 1: Please ask questions and only state a dispute with an example to improve my understanding, this forum is intended to educate with an interactive environment.
  • Be open-minded and curious. Do not dismiss or ignore answers that challenge your reality or beliefs. Try to embrace them as opportunities to learn and grow. Try to approach them with logical, critical, and professional minds, and seek to understand the evidence and reasoning behind them.
  • Be empathetic and respectful. Do not judge or ridicule other people’s perspectives or experiences. Try to comprehend their viewpoints and appreciate their contributions to the larger and more intricate reality. Try to see how different perspectives can form a more complex and complete picture of the world.
  • Be honest and responsible. Always prioritize speaking the truth and avoid making definitive claims when uncertain. Use qualifiers like "about," "I saw," "I think," or "I believe" to convey information accurately.
  • Be clear about the source of your knowledge when sharing with others. This fosters a truthful and respectful environment for discussions.
  • Be relevant and on-topic. Do not deviate from the main topic of the forum. Do not post irrelevant or off-topic comments and links that aren't productive to the questions being discussed.
  • Be constructive and creative. Do not simply criticize or reject other people’s ideas. Try to offer positive feedback, suggestions, or alternatives.
  • Be clear and concise. Try to use clear and accurate language as much as possible. To have effective communication it is necessary to speak understandably.



Topic's author
#2
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
Here are some of the main aspects of Buddhism:

The Buddha: The Buddha, which means “the awakened one”, is the title given to Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. He was born as a prince in present-day Nepal around the 5th century BCE, but he renounced his wealth and privilege after witnessing the suffering of human life. He embarked on a spiritual quest for truth and enlightenment, and after years of meditation and asceticism, he attained nirvana, the ultimate state of liberation from the cycle of rebirth. He then spent the rest of his life teaching his doctrine and method to others, until he passed away at the age of 80. The Buddha is not considered a god or a deity, but rather an extraordinary human being who achieved the highest potential of human existence.

The Dharma: The Dharma, which means “the teaching” or “the law”, is the collective term for the teachings and doctrines of the Buddha. The Dharma is based on the Four Noble Truths, which are: 1) Life is suffering (dukkha); 2) The cause of suffering is craving (tanha); 3) The cessation of suffering is possible by overcoming craving (nirodha); 4) The way to overcome craving and attain nirvana is by following the Eightfold Path (magga). The Eightfold Path consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. The Dharma also includes various ethical precepts, such as the Five Precepts (to refrain from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct, and intoxication), and various philosophical concepts, such as karma (the law of cause and effect), rebirth (the continuous cycle of existence), anatta (the doctrine of no-self), anicca (the doctrine of impermanence), and dependent origination (the principle that all phenomena arise and cease in dependence on conditions).

The Sangha: The Sangha, which means “the community” or “the assembly”, is the term for the followers and practitioners of Buddhism. The Sangha consists of two main groups: the monastic Sangha and the lay Sangha. The monastic Sangha are those who have renounced worldly life and taken vows to live according to strict rules of discipline and celibacy. They are also known as bhikkhus (monks) and bhikkhunis (nuns), and they devote their lives to studying, teaching, and practicing the Dharma. The lay Sangha are those who have not taken monastic vows, but still follow the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism. They are also known as upasakas (male lay followers) and upasikas (female lay followers), and they support the monastic Sangha by providing them with material necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. Both groups form a mutually beneficial relationship based on respect, gratitude, and generosity.

#3
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
Hi Critical-Tim,

thanks for the topic.

In relation to your second point - dharma, you mention the eightfold path - eight steps which all are preceded by the adjective, right.  Would you be able to articulate how someone knows for sure what "right" is? And is it possible that two different people - or indeed many different people might have a different view of "right" and must follow those contradicting paths?




Topic's author
#4
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
The Eightfold Path consists of eight interconnected aspects of ethical and mental development.

These aspects are:
  1. Right View: Understanding the nature of suffering, the causes of suffering, and the path to its cessation.
  2. Right Intention: Developing wholesome and compassionate intentions in all actions.
  3. Right Speech: Speaking truthfully, kindly, and in ways that promote harmony.
  4. Right Action: Engaging in ethical and morally upright conduct, avoiding harm to others.
  5. Right Livelihood: Choosing a livelihood that aligns with ethical and moral principles, avoiding harm and exploitation.
  6. Right Effort: Cultivating a balanced and persistent effort in the practice of meditation and moral conduct.
  7. Right Mindfulness: Developing keen awareness of one's thoughts, feelings, and actions in the present moment.
  8. Right Concentration: Cultivating focused and concentrated states of mind through meditation.

These aspects are not necessarily intuitive or innate, and individuals may have different understandings of what is "right" based on their cultural, social, or personal backgrounds. Therefore, Buddhist practice often involves guidance from teachers, study of sacred texts, and meditation to refine one's understanding of these principles and apply them in daily life.

“Right” in Buddhism is a relative and contextual concept that depends on various factors. It is guided by the teachings and precepts of the Buddha, especially the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths. It is also determined by one’s own intention, motivation, and understanding. Different people may have different views of what is “right”, but they can all follow the same path to liberation from suffering.

Ultimately, the rules and guidelines are typically considered flexible and contextual rather than fixed and dogmatic.
#5
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
thanks for your response. 

Of course for the Western Mindset, this flexibility and contextual approach is someone what a conundrum. For the Eastern mindset, not so much. 

It is also true that as the West becomes more multicultural, as it moves away from the modern to the postmodern view many will embrace these ideas. 

Yet isn't it true that the world contains ABSOLUTE TRUTH?  After all, even for the Buddha, the only path to enlightenment was by this path. Or did he envisage that there may be other paths to Nirvana? And if so, why would he guide people to this path rather than let them pursue their own path? 


Topic's author
#6
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
To my understanding, the Buddha did not believe in a rigid path, but rather a destination with a general direction which people can pursue within the boundaries of the path.
#7
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
So is a rigid general direction or is it omni-directional? 
Topic's author
#8
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
Imagine the concept of reaching Nirvana as if it were a racetrack with a single finish line, symbolizing the destination of inner peace and enlightenment. This racetrack represents the journey of spiritual growth and self-realization.

Within this racetrack, there exist multiple paths or lanes, akin to the various approaches, practices, and teachings that individuals may follow on their spiritual journey. Much like a racetrack offers the inside lane, the outside lane, the middle lane, and countless combinations for drivers to choose from, there are many paths on the road to Nirvana.

However, it's crucial to note that while there are many legitimate paths within the racetrack that lead to Nirvana, there are also countless other paths that stray from the road altogether. These divergent paths do not align with the journey towards inner peace and enlightenment and may lead individuals away from the ultimate destination.

So, just as racers adhere to the racetrack's boundaries, those seeking Nirvana stay on the path toward enlightenment, selecting from the array of legitimate approaches while avoiding those that deviate from the true course.

Ultimately, there are many paths to Nirvana, but even more that lead elsewhere.

#9
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
So it is rigid then? 

Stay on the racetrack or face ultimate destruction. 

And it's interesting that you actually make the point that there are MANY MORE paths that lead to ultimate destruction than to Nirvana.

How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are?  And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway? 

Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness.  But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him. 

Everyone struggles. In fact, I would suggest that those who reveal more peace tend to be the worst strugglers of all.  There seems to be a total denial of what is inner peace and what is not.  Surely, the entire purpose of religion - whether you believe in God or not, is to find peace between the creator or nature and yourself. This would then translate into peace with your neighbours.  

Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like.  And also what is enlightenment? 

Thanks again for your response. 
Topic's author
#10
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
In Buddhism, the path to Nirvana is not rigid, but there are constraints to which paths will lead there.

The many paths that don't lead to Nirvana actually aligns with Christianity, "the path to heaven is a narrow road, and to stray will lead to hell."

How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are? And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway? 
The road with many paths seems to be constrained to the abstracted idea presented by the eight principles. I believe the point is to understand reality through enlightenment, enabling us to align ourselves with reality, leading to consciousness and mindfulness.
This helps us live life with our eyes open.
Once enlightend and now understanding, we can see unnecessary suffering coming a mile away, thus avoiding it.

I believe that most suffering in life is self-inflicted through willful blindness.

Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness. But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him.
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.

Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like. And also what is enlightenment? 
Jordan Peterson defines happiness as what brings positive feelings in the moment, but it is not worth living for. He says meaning is what will bring light to our times of darkness, and it is worth living for.

Enlightenment is when we understand reality, and I define understanding reality as the ability to navigate through the uncharted seas of life. It is not just knowing what to do with what you have learned, but also knowing what to do when you are in a new environment.

I believe the end goal of Buddhism is to avoid unnecessary suffering by understanding through enlightenment.
#11
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
In Buddhism, the path to Nirvana is not rigid, but there are constraints to which paths will lead there.

The many paths that don't lead to Nirvana actually aligns with Christianity, "the path to heaven is a narrow road, and to stray will lead to hell."
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?  Surely the rigidness of Buddhism is evidenced by the constraints of the correct path?  I take the view that the Christian path mentioned above is a prophecy.  Hence, it is not rigid.  For me, the purpose of prophecy is the main thing.  It is the forth telling, not the fore telling.  In other words, what is the ethical response to a prophecy? And the answer to that - may well change the outcome. For example, look at the story of Jonah. Why did Jonah not get stoned for being a false prophet? Because the purpose of his prophecy was to cause the people to respond ethically to it, not to just simply fore-tell the future.  Christianity is also a covenant religion. This means it believes that freedom is defined by boundaries.  Hence, its belief in the Trinity. The One and the Many. And why it holds to the view that the means is just as important as the ends. 

How then is the person to know where the race track boundaries are? And why is inner peace and enlightenment the end outcome anyway? 
The road with many paths seems to be constrained to the abstracted idea presented by the eight principles. I believe the point is to understand reality through enlightenment, enabling us to align ourselves with reality, leading to consciousness and mindfulness.
This helps us live life with our eyes open.
Once enlightend and now understanding, we can see unnecessary suffering coming a mile away, thus avoiding it. I believe that most suffering in life is self-inflicted through willful blindness.
Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education.  Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse.  I don't have an issue with us getting wisdom. I think wisdom is a good thing. Yet what is willful blindness to one person is wise advice for another. Hence, why subjectivity makes a joke of true wisdom. 


Surely the goal of inner peace is subjective all by itself? I might indicate for instance that I think inner peace is something I found a long time ago, but not because I went looking for it in my own mindfulness. But rather because God came to me and brought peace with him.
I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples? 


Isn't happiness the primary goal? Perhaps you might define and explain what inner peace looks like. And also what is enlightenment? 
Jordan Peterson defines happiness as what brings positive feelings in the moment, but it is not worth living for. He says meaning is what will bring light to our times of darkness, and it is worth living for.

Enlightenment is when we understand reality, and I define understanding reality as the ability to navigate through the uncharted seas of life. It is not just knowing what to do with what you have learned, but also knowing what to do when you are in a new environment.

I believe the end goal of Buddhism is to avoid unnecessary suffering by understanding through enlightenment.
In Christianity, we are taught that suffering is a natural part of life, and will be this side of glory.  In the Christian message, the God of the universe, suffered the most agonising death, to bring reconciliation between humanity and God.  The Christian message would never be "Come to Jesus and you will never suffer again".   For us, the reality of life - is to understand that suffering is real and part of life.  Of course, this doesn't mean that we go looking for needless suffering or indeed suffering of any kind.  Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God not to become happy or to avoid suffering. Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is an intentional wilful blindness.  Curious really.  

Topic's author
#12
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?
A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.

Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education.  Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse. 
Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.

I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.

I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws.
Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.

I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples? 
I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)
Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)

I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.

Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering. 
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.
I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.

Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness.  Curious really.
I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.
I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.
#13
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,457
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Critical-Tim
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?
A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.
Respectfully that is a terrible example. I'm not sure what to do with it.  It doesn't help at all. 

Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education.  Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse. 
Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.

I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.

I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws.
Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.
I'm not sure why you would think any of what you have said is helpful in our discussion.  You seem to be going around in circles. Are you feeling stumped? 

I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples? 
I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)
Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)

I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.
I'm pretty sure that all people would agree with the view that torture is bad. But what does that have to do with inner peace? 


Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering. 
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.
I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.
Really. On what basis do you think that?

Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness.  Curious really.
I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.
I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.
you could be right, but you have not shown why.  What does altruism mean?  and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism? 



Topic's author
#14
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Tradesecret
How is a constraint not a situation of rigidity?
A primary example would be rubber; It is flexible, but it has a constraint on flexibility.
Respectfully that is a terrible example. I'm not sure what to do with it.  It doesn't help at all. 
That is the most tangible explanation I could think of to describe how an abstract concept could be flexible yet have constraints.
The point was that the road to Nirvana is not rigid, like a single path, but rather many paths, yet they all follow the road, and there are even more paths that stray from the road, which are not the path.

Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering. I am not sure that enlightenment is the answer. That sounds like salvation by education.  Education though a good thing must be good education. In other words, there are bad forms of education that actually produce more suffering. Take the example of communism. So-called enlightenment actually has caused more pain and suffering on the premise of a greater good argument. But sadly has led to the reverse. 
  1. Enlightenment in Buddhism is commonly referred to as "Nirvana" (or "Nibbana" in Pali), and it represents the ultimate goal of the Buddhist path. Nirvana is a state of profound spiritual realization and liberation from suffering. It involves a complete extinguishing of suffering and the causes of suffering, resulting in a state of peace, wisdom, and spiritual awakening.
  2. I suppose, if you have explained that communism leads to more suffering than not, then it would not be considered enlightenment.
  3. I personally believe enlightenment is a sort of self-salvation, as you are saving yourself from your past self's flaws. Even if you prefer not to call it self-salvation, educational enlightenment ceases self-inflicted torture.
I'm not sure why you would think any of what you have said is helpful in our discussion.  You seem to be going around in circles. Are you feeling stumped? 
You had a dispute on enlightenment, the first thing to do would be:
  1. define enlightenment from the perspective of the religion
  2. then to respond to you dispute
  3. then to explain my personal thoughts if I have any disputes with the religion's definition.
What more could you have asked for?

I think that inner peace is indeed subjective, but I do believe that there is a level of conformity for all people on what they find peaceful.
Why? What kind of level are we talking about? Can you provide some examples? 
I think that one person might find classical music peaceful, while another might find it boringly dreadful. (Subjective)
Meanwhile, no one finds torture peaceful. (Intersubjective)

I use these two cases to prove that peace is a subjective sensation, though it has a level of constraint in which all will find not peaceful.
I'm pretty sure that all people would agree with the view that torture is bad. But what does that have to do with inner peace? 
Peace is the state or quality of being free from violence, conflict, or disturbance, both internally and externally.

Being free from torture is a part of being at peace.

Our ultimate goal would be to glorify God, not to become happy or to avoid suffering. 
Perhaps our ultimate goal is to glorify God, but I don't believe avoiding suffering conflicts with our primary goal.
I believe it's possible that we could glorify God while avoiding suffering.
Really. On what basis do you think that?
As you said above...

Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely, we should avoid that kind of suffering.
I'm speaking of the same suffering. We should become more conscious, so we can avoid suffering caused by ignorance.


Both of those things, including the end goal of Buddhism, seem to be linked to the natural selfishness of humanity, not to the Creator God of the universe. Selfishness, including the pursuit of avoiding suffering, in our view, is actually a lack of enlightenment. It is intentional willful blindness.  Curious really.
I'm not sure Christianity is as altruistic in comparison to Buddhism as most Christians would believe.
I think the only way we could know is whether people would still glorify God if there was no reward of heaven or hell.
You could be right, but you have not shown why.  What does altruism mean?  and what do both religions hold to in relation to altruism? 
Altruism is the quality or practice of caring for the well-being of others without expecting anything in return, even if it means sacrificing one’s own interests or happiness.

I believe both religions show that being moral is at one's own self-interest.

When asking for empirical evidence, remember this is a religious forum, so not everything is founded in rationality.
#15
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Stephen



.
Stephen,

MISS TRADESECRET’S QUOTE IN A ROUND ABOUT WAY MENTIONING HER BIBLE STUPIDITY:  “Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering.”


Since Miss Tradesecret still remains the #1 Bible fool upon this Religion Forum, and shows no signs whatsoever recently to be even a micron smarter of the Bible than she was before, then she cannot avoid that kind of suffering in being Bible Stupid as she stipulates in her post above.  Truly sad.  



MISS TRADESECRETS POST RELATIVE TO JESUS’ ASSUMED DEATH: “In the Christian message, the God of the universe, suffered the most agonising death, to bring reconciliation between humanity and God.”

Miss Tradesecret doesn’t remember when I took her to the cleaners upon this topic a while back, where Jesus was only dead for THREE DAYS, and later came back to life as an assumed zombie to scare the shit out of His disciples!

When Jesus died, and as the only true God of the universe where how could this happen in the first place,  a factual and real sacrifice is that you remain DEAD, period, where one does NOT come back to life three days later!  As an example, a true sacrifice is when USA  soldiers remained dead after they gave their lives to protect the United States of America in WW2!



As it is shown in this thread, Miss Tradesecret is dancing around the May-Pole again and not specifically going straight to the crux of her assumed Christianity, where Jesus as God says to preach the gospel of Himself to any naysayers like Critical-Tim, in essence, take no prisoners!

“Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15)


It has always been hard for Miss Tradesecret to actually come to the point of any discussion, other than to give long-winded responses instead of directly bringing Christianity to the forefront immediately against any other religion!

Furthermore, I am not picking on Miss Tradesecrets Bible STUPIDITY all the time, where when she continues to show her Bible ineptness, and in the name of Jesus, I therefore have to correct her!  In essence, if she wasn’t so God Damned Bible Stupid, it would make my presence upon this Religion Forum a lot easier, praise Jesus!

.
#16
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical-Tim,

YOUR COMICAL RELIGION OF BUDDHISM IS  DEFINED AS SUCH:  "Buddhism is one of the world's largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India. Buddhists believe that the human life is one of suffering, and that meditation, spiritual and physical labor, and good behavior are the ways to achieve enlightenment, or nirvana."

TRUE Christians, like myself, are simply told within the scriptures that Christianity is the true and indisputable religion upon Jesus' earth, period! "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8)

Therefore, since Miss Tradesecret didn't come to the point quick enough regarding Christianity being true to it's followers, I have done so towards her miserable and continuous ramblings at her expense of embarrassment once again!  Case closed!

NEXT?

.
Topic's author
#17
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I don't understand what you think you proved...?
This is a discussion about Buddhism, so quoting the Christian text is hardly considered relevant in this forum.
However, I would be interested in engaging if you created a Christian forum; I also have created one about Taoism, since I wish to learn more about these other widely accepted religions.
#18
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,657
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
MISS TRADESECRETS POST RELATIVE TO JESUS’ ASSUMED DEATH: “In the Christian message, the God of the universe, suffered the most agonising death, to bring reconciliation between humanity and God.”

I am still waiting (over 40 years now)for any Christian to explain to me why it was that god required a vile, vicious,  and torturous  blood sacrifice before  he would forgive  and save us from our sins?

#19
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim



.
Critical-Tim,

YOUR STUPID QUOTE: "This is a discussion about Buddhism, so quoting the Christian text is hardly considered relevant in this forum."

First thing, my bringing forth Christian text is in your "thread" and not within this forum as a whole, get it?

Secondly ,you allowed the #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret to bring into play her Christianity many times in her feeble posts, therefore do not call me out in the same manner, understood?


Taoism and Buddhism goes directly against Christianity, therefore my God Jesus tells me to refute them when appropriate;

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9).  "We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5)


Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4.  Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith:  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)

.



Topic's author
#20
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Secondly ,you allowed the #1 Bible Stupid Fool Miss Tradesecret to bring into play her Christianity many times in her feeble posts, therefore do not call me out in the same manner, understood?
Not quite, as there was a difference. Tradesecret was pointing out the relations, you were attempting to logically invalidate one religion with another, which is not rational.
Topic's author
#21
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Let me find enjoyment in challenging myself to logically invalidate your stance within the religious standards of Christianity, your homefield.
Moreover, I will maintain my composure to demonstrate my stability and thoughtfulness in the matter.

The Bible verse where Jesus said “Do not cast your pearls before swine” is found in Matthew 7:6. It is part of the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus taught his disciples and the crowds about various aspects of the kingdom of God.

Here is a list of interpretations for this verse:

  • Do not share your most precious gifts with those who do not appreciate them.
  • Be careful not to waste your time and energy on those who are not interested in the truth.
  • Know when to speak and when to be silent, and do not force your faith on those who are hostile or indifferent to it.
  • Respect the holy things of God, and do not let them be trampled or attacked by those who do not understand them.

This verse also reminds us that we are responsible for how we treat the holy things of God. We should not take them for granted, or misuse them, or expose them to ridicule or abuse. We should treasure them in our hearts, and live according to them, and share them with those who are hungry and thirsty for God.

How many ways do you believe you have broken this passage?

Topic's author
#22
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Taoism and Buddhism goes directly against Christianity, therefore my God Jesus tells me to refute them when appropriate;
While that is correct, you aren't simply refuting them as the passage says; you are taking your own actions to not just confront but harass others.
If you want to follow the whole of God's scriptures you should read the Bible as a whole and follow all his teachings, rather than being conveniently selective.
#23
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical-Tim,

YOUR IDIOTIC QUOTE:  "Not quite, as there was a difference. Tradesecret was pointing out the relations, you were attempting to logically invalidate one religion with another, which is not rational."

Heads up fool, where you are too SCARED to list your religion, or the lack thereof,  or your political views your  biography, and relative to me allegedly being irrational, what part if these Jesus inspired passages shown below don't you understand AGAIN?  Do I need to define them for you in a grade school manner, huh?  Besides, where do YOU get the authority to usurp Jesus' words below?!

1. “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2)

2.  “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15)

.

#24
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim



YOUR QUOTE IN TRYING TO DECIPHER THE BIBLE:  "The Bible verse where Jesus said “Do not cast your pearls before swine” is found in Matthew 7:6." 

Are you "trying" to tell me that I am not to follow the Jesus inspired passages below AGAIN?!

1. “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” (2 Timothy 4:2)
2.  “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15)


YOUR LACKING QUOTE  OF ALLEGED DEFINITIONS OF MATTHEW 7:6:  

A. Do not share your most precious gifts with those who do not appreciate them.
B. Be careful not to waste your time and energy on those who are not interested in the truth.
C. Know when to speak and when to be silent, and do not force your faith on those who are hostile or indifferent to it.
D. Respect the holy things of God, and do not let them be trampled or attacked by those who do not understand them.

Cite your propositions by peered reviewed individuals shown above, like I do with giving you chapter and verse of the Bible to support my statements, understood, kid?  You are NOT dealing with the the #1 Bible Fool Miss Tradesecret, but with me now,  get it?


YOUR REALLY STUPID QUESTION AGAIN IN ME "ALLEGEDLY" BREAKING MATTHEW 7:6:  "How many ways do you believe you have broken this passage?"

HUH?  Are you now saying that the Bible CONTRADICTS itself relative to the aforementioned two listed passages above?  How do you plead in this respect?

Once again, the moderators must have left the sign out again when in logging in to this forum that says relative to YOU: "All truly ignorant of the Bible are welcome into this forum!"  LOL!

.




Topic's author
#25
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Heads up fool, where you are too SCARED to list your religion, or the lack thereof, or your political views your biography, and relative to me allegedly being irrational, what part if these Jesus inspired passages shown below don't you understand AGAIN? Do I need to define them for you in a grade school manner, huh? Besides, where do YOU get the authority to usurp Jesus' words below?!
While it may be true I lack a religion, or feel insecure to defend my stance and therefore chose not to display, it could also be true my religion was not listed in the short drop-down list, or I might not entirely agree with any one religion. It's important to have outside the box thinking when engaging in debates.

I believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, it would be inappropriate to take his words out of context. In order to take his word wholly, we must read them together.

1. “Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” aka always be ready to Preach and prove your faith (2 Timothy 4:2)

2. “And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” aka  (Mark 16:15)

3. “Do not cast your pearls before swine.” aka preach to those that value your words. (Matthew 7:6)

Now we can see his meaning more comprehensively: Always be ready to preach and prove your faith telling everyone throughout the world, but only share with those that value your word, otherwise they will cast them out to be trampled in the mud.

Do you agree God intended we follow all of his words, or do you believe that some of his words should only be followed in certain circumstances, or perhaps some of his words are outdated or superceded by his later ones. I don't think he would have made the mistake of contradicting himself, or chosing words to that would become outdated. What do you think?
#26
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim



.
Critical-Tim,

Taoism and Buddhism goes directly against Christianity, therefore my God Jesus tells me to refute them when appropriate;
YOUR QUOTE OF BEING REALLY STUPID AGAIN RELATIVE TO THE BIBLE:  "While that is correct, you aren't simply refuting them as the passage says; you are taking your own actions to not just confront but harass others."

Listen up 2nd grade thinker,  I am taking the actions of Jesus' words in the passages in question, therefore I am not harassing anyone. If said passages disturb any member, then so be it because it is the direct word of Jesus as God!  DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS SIMPLE PREMISE? Duh!


YOUR OUTRIGHT STUPID QUESTION AGAIN:  "If you want to follow the whole of God's scriptures you should read the Bible as a whole and follow all his teachings, rather than being conveniently selective."

HELLO, anybody home today, obviously not!  I have read ALL of the scripture, thus the passages that I have brought forth at your embarrassment because at this point, you cannot refute said passages to your way of thinking relative to me allegedly making certain members the Bible dunces they truly are, now including YOU and Miss Tradesecret!  LOL!



Critical-Tim, speaking about your response to me about being "conveniently selective" upon Bible passages, YOU are in turn, being VERY conveniently selective in to addressing all of my posts to you!  Why is that?  The following statements that you are "conveniently" running away from are listed below:

1.  Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4.  Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith:  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)


2. When Jesus died, and as the only true God of the universe where how could this happen in the first place,  a factual and real sacrifice is that you remain DEAD, period, where one does NOT come back to life three days later!  As an example, a true sacrifice is when USA  soldiers remained dead after they gave their lives to protect the United States of America in WW2!


3. MISS TRADESECRET’S QUOTE IN A ROUND ABOUT WAY MENTIONING HER BIBLE STUPIDITY:  “Suffering comes for lots of reasons.  One is stupidity. And surely we should avoid that kind of suffering.”

Since Miss Tradesecret still remains the #1 Bible fool upon this Religion Forum, and shows no signs whatsoever recently to be even a micron smarter of the Bible than she was before, then she cannot avoid that kind of suffering in being Bible Stupid as she stipulates in her post above.  Truly sad.  



Critical-Tim, are you vying to take over Miss Tradesecrets position of being the #1 Bible fool of this forum?

.


Topic's author
#27
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
When the Bible said to preach to all the world, do you believe the intention was simply for the person the preach, or to bring more people to know God?

To my understanding, God loves all and wishes for all to know him so they can go to heaven; with this in mind, I believe the intention was to bring more people to know God and go to heaven.

I don't believe you are giving a positive Christian experience for those that don't believe in the Christian God, perhaps even pushing some away. What do you think?
#28
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 390
1
2
7
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
7
-->
@Critical-Tim


.
Critical-Tim,

#1 YOUR DOUBLE SPEAK AND EMBARRASSING QUOTES:  "While it may be true I lack a religion, or feel insecure to defend my stance and therefore chose not to display, it could also be true my religion was not listed in the short drop-down list, or I might not entirely agree with any one religion."

#2 YOUR ***CONTRADICTING*** QUOTE TO YOUR INSIPID QUOTE ABOVE:  "I believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, it would be inappropriate to take his words out of context. In order to take his word wholly, we must read them together."

H-E-L-L-O?!!!  One side of your Devil Speak mouth says; "or I might not entirely agree with any one religion," then you CONTRADICT yourself in precluding that you believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, which is Jesus as God of Christianity,  therefore, YOU DO NOT LACK ANY RELIGION like you said you do when stating such a fact!

Can you spell "H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?"  Sure you can!  LOL!


I am truly sorry that Miss Tradesecret has run away from discussion with you in your thread, that is her true modus operandi showing itself once again.

.
Topic's author
#29
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
1. Furthermore, don't forget to address Tradesecret as a "FEMALE" as shown in this lin under her gender: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEGZNA4. Therefore, "she" is not even supposed to be on this forum as a female to begin with in teaching or to exercise the authority over the superior man, so saith our God Jesus' inspired words herewith: "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent." (1 Timothy 2:11)
Perhaps it relative to the time and culture, and perhaps not. It could mean that a true Christian women should refrain from teaching, but I didnt see anywhere that tells men to stop women from preaching; it might have been implicit.

I also know there are several women that speak God's word in the bible. Here are just a few:

Miriam: She was the sister of Moses and Aaron, and a leader of the Israelites. She sang a song of praise to God after he delivered them from the Egyptians at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:20-21). She also prophesied along with her brothers (Numbers 12:1-2).

Deborah: She was a judge and a prophetess in Israel. She led the people in war against the Canaanites, and sang a victory song with Barak, the commander of the army (Judges 4-5). She also gave wise counsel and guidance to the people (Judges 4:4-5).

Huldah: She was a prophetess who lived in Jerusalem during the reign of King Josiah. She confirmed the authenticity and authority of the book of the law that was found in the temple, and gave a message from God to the king and his officials (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chronicles 34:22-28).
Topic's author
#30
Critical-Tim
Critical-Tim's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 902
3
2
7
Critical-Tim's avatar
Critical-Tim
3
2
7
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
#1 YOUR DOUBLE SPEAK AND EMBARRASSING QUOTES: "While it may be true I lack a religion, or feel insecure to defend my stance and therefore chose not to display, it could also be true my religion was not listed in the short drop-down list, or I might not entirely agree with any one religion."

#2 YOUR ***CONTRADICTING*** QUOTE TO YOUR INSIPID QUOTE ABOVE: "I believe that God intended us to read his whole Bible, it would be inappropriate to take his words out of context. In order to take his word wholly, we must read them together."
It was not a contradiction. I said that I believe that God intended for us to read his whole scripture; this does not imply I believe he exists.

I can believe that Anakin Skywalker had good in his heart, yet he became overtook by by the dark side. This does not mean I believe starwars is real, but that I believe in a trait of his character.

In essence, there was no contradiction. My words remain. Please remember to answer the question regarding reading his scripture as a whole, sharing your thoughts on the scriptures meaning, without forgetting scripture 3.

I am truly sorry that Miss Tradesecret has run away from discussion with you in your thread, that is her true modus operandi showing itself once again.
I do wish she didn't let it bother her, but I do hope she continues to read the thread. I joined, not because of your harassment, as that is the mods job, but because this was my forum; thus, I'm obligated to respond.