THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE

last SG · 2011-07-11T23:56:39+00:00

"Amitayus48", you have only quoted those who said there is only one God. There are many who said otherwise."I no stupid", well said .. Buddhism does begin as...

Dawnfirstlight SG

hahaha, you don't talk? And you are here? Be a dumb and that is emptiness. So what are enlightened ones bothered with? To come back again to save sentient beings - human, dogs and cockroaches?

hahaha, I talk but obviously not as much as you. Oh, is that your understanding of emptiness ? Dumb = Emptiness ? I see your understanding of Buddhism now.

geis SG

what is the intention behind a discussion of this topic?

An Eternal Now SG

Indeed, there are a lot of people with power - Col Gaddafi of Libya is one. I am sure his past lives were terrible ones. If monks have power, why need to eat?

Buddha in his life time already had problems and troubles with the monks. Imagine what kind of havoc and circus if monks had the powers. You think Buddha can restraint them?

Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.

That said, many yogis actually don't eat:

http://www.youtubetranslations.gr/Buddha_boy_pop_up_en.htm

And yes, Buddha can't restrain them if they chooses to refuse to listen to the Buddha. However, they are bound by a set of rules that if broken could mean they are no longer qualified as part of the monastic community.

Alloy13 SG

There is no business like minding your own business. 'Business' comes from the word 'busy'. It should be spelt 'busyness' but that is incorrect.

Indeed, people have always believed what they wanted to believe. On a civilised basis, we can debate and argue on what is 'true religion'. So long as we do it without resorting to violence and physical harm, it is OK. At most our EGO get bruised.

How many religions really adhere to non violence? Take the Spanish Inquisition. Take the Muslim jihad. Take the Christian crusade. Take the Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka participating in political activities that often turned violent.

End of Story? Sorry, my friend, plenty of stories.

Why debate it when no resolution can ever be reached? Every religion that comes into the picture is simply one more conflicting story to the already widely-debated issues of the beginning of the universe, meaning of life and so on. Furthermore, there is no easy way to prove or disprove a religion.

Let me tell you what you will find if you delve into the details of each religion. You will find that every religion promises you a better life, and there will be some indication, strong or weak, that you should spread word of this promise of a better future. No prizes for guessing what that will lead to should followers strictly adhere to that.

At the end of the day, what we need to be is goal-oriented. The only reason why we are having this 'discourse' is to prove our beliefs are right, over all others. It is a matter of pride. What I say is, put pride aside and live your life as morally-upright individual without stepping on others' toes. As for the goal of this debate, can you give me one genuine benefit should we arrive at a conclusion stating that "THIS" is the one true religion? Do you honestly believe that the ones who are proven 'wrong' will lay down their beliefs and flock to the newly 'proven' religion? Further animosity and bloodshed will be what you are looking at.

So tell me, friendo, what do you hope to achieve from this? If you cannot adequately answer this, please do not attempt to shatter what little peace we have left in a world full of people stubbornly standing behind their beliefs.

PS: There is a reason why Singapore Government emphasizes tolerance among religions as well as races, instead of trying to thoroughly 'investigate' conflicts of this nature.

An Eternal Now SG

Actually this discussion has long strayed from the original topic of 'THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION DEBATE'

I No Stupid SG

PS: There is a reason why Singapore Government emphasizes tolerance among religions as well as races, instead of trying to thoroughly 'investigate' conflicts of this nature.

hmmm ... you have to ask the one who start this thread the purpose of the 'discourses' here, not mine only! I am not the only participant and you have given your discourse too. You come in like an angel trying to be a peacemaker. By the way, the SG government like many other secular governments steer clear of religious issues for the common-sense reason that no one religious adherent will give way to another whether violently or non-violently.

If you read European history, there was a struggle to separate Church from State. Thank 'God' the struggle succeeded and both Church and State stays at arms' length, not embracing each other!

I No Stupid SG

Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.

That said, many yogis actually don't eat:

http://www.youtubetranslations.gr/Buddha_boy_pop_up_en.htm

//Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.//

hmmm ... interesting, so monks eat to act 'normal' too? I think you are delusional.

//That said, many yogis actually don't eat://

The yogis should go to Africa and help the countless hungry children not to eat!

An Eternal Now SG

//Buddha ate to act 'normal' in the eyes of other humans - also he wouldn't want to be seen as promoting ascetism or 'not eating' since starving yourself isn't going to help in enlightenment.//

hmmm ... interesting, so monks eat to act 'normal' too? I think you are delusional.

//That said, many yogis actually don't eat://

The yogis should go to Africa and help the countless hungry children not to eat!

I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.

I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.

I No Stupid SG

I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.

I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.

//I don't mean that all monks can don't eat. Some can, some cannot.//

You mean there are 'eating' monks and 'non-eating' monks? How do you distinguish them when you offer dana?

//I doubt hungry children would want to spend years meditating. They rather want an immediate solution such as real food.//

So meditation is dummy food? How do you know hungry children won't meditate? If they can be full and not hungry by meditation ... that is better - no need to ask for food aid.

An Eternal Now SG

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

An Eternal Now SG

Monks who accept dana are eating monks. You need time, probably years of training in order to achieve powers of any kind. Anyway your current questions are getting more and more unconstructive and laughable so I shall not entertain them anymore.

I No Stupid SG

hmm .. who was it who said Buddha don't eat and some monks don't too? And I am just posing logical questions because I have no experiential realization that human don't eat!

You think my questions are unconstructive or your assertions have no answers? And you have been entertaining me all this while?

An Eternal Now SG

I have always answered you unfailingly. But it seems like your questions are getting pointless.

Buddhas and monks can don't eat if they have that yogic ability. Not all monks have that yogic ability. The 16 year old Buddha boy in the Discovery channel documentary is an example of someone who can choose not to eat, and actually does not eat for 6 years. There are others like Prahlad Jnani, etc. It is actually quite common for yogis.

I did not say Buddha did not eat. I said, he can choose not to eat, but he chooses to eat in order to act normal.

An Eternal Now SG

"the film crew was able to film Ram continuously for 96 hours, day and night, during which time he did not change his position and did not drink any fluids or eat any food. As Discovery Channel's commentator concluded: "After 96 hours of filming, Ram has defied modern science by continuing his meditation and remaining alive."

I No Stupid SG

96 hours is 4 days. Have you not heard of survivor in a disaster who hadn't eaten or drunk for more than 7 days which is the 'medical' limit.

I contend that Buddha's choosing to eat or not to eat (as you put it) is a fallacy.

An Eternal Now SG

Your proposal does not make sense. You think a little boy would starve himself for 4 days just to let others film him? Do you think a normal person can sit for 4 days motionless while not eating, drinking, peeing, moving, etc?

Furthermore, he is actually sitting out in the open for everyone to see for years. Not 4 days or 7 days.

This simply shows your narrow mindedness and dogmatism.

I No Stupid SG

Furthermore, he is actually sitting out in the open for everyone to see for years. Not 4 days or 7 days.

This simply shows your narrow mindedness and dogmatism.

I am disproving that the boy is a wonder! A survivor trapped in a collapsed building is in far worse conditions than the show drama that was filmed. You are very naive as compared to my "narrow-mindedness"!

I am not dogmatic because I like people to reason and question - you got it wrong!

An Eternal Now SG

Years, not days.

I No Stupid SG

Years, not days.

You mean the boy starved himself continuously without break for years? Bring him to Africa to help the hungry children there.

An Eternal Now SG

Haha, I already said it takes skill and practice. Not a one day stuff. By the time the Africans mastered meditation, they might have starved to death.

« Previous Page Next Page »