Notice: Imposing Stricter Rules & Regulations for the Forum

maggot SG

The website we are using now

Just look below Wink

Copyright © 1999-2007. A quality website by Jeyel Media (UK) Limited. All Rights Reserved.
Advertise popup: none timeflag: 01.01.70, 7:30:00.
Cached: shoutcast, sessions-sgForums.com.
0-body-0-x 0. gSafe:1Singapore Online Advertising

Beyond Religion SG

Yamizi,

No lah... I don't really want to enforce this and make police report against anyone. For far too many years, Buddhism and Taoism represent "soft" targets to all malicious detractors. These people would attack, badmouth or redicule Buddhism and taoism (as well their adherents and practices) at will without fear of any legal or social consequence. I just wish for this statute to be widely known so that these people will know that they are violating the law.

yamizi SG

Oh good question.

I think, I think lah, technically cannot lah, because this site doesn't belong to Singapore.

However, it can easily trace down that who and where the forummers are right?

Hmm.

Good question, maybe I can ask my colleagues about it.

yamizi SG

Couldn't agree with you more!

We are "soft" targets because many of the "targets" are taught to be "soft". Probably buddhists will think that speaking up for their own faith is not a behaviour of buddhists?

I met non buddhists who can tell me Buddha will not refute false views and say others wrong. If so, the Buddha really cannot become Buddha liao cos He would have just simply guai guai accept what His previous 2 gurus and taught Him before He went for acestics.

But the fact is that Buddha often taught that we should establish and expound the Truth. So I always encouage buddhists around me when they face such "insults" by people of other beliefs, we shouldn't be disheartened but see it rather as a chance to practice determination and resolute against obstructions. And that we should remain calm and mindful and tell them how come Buddha is not a Devil! (or any other matters of Buddhism that have been misunderstood or misrepresented).

Herzog_Zwei SG

I disagree that Buddhism is a soft target as Buddhist adherents have be targetting atheists and irreligionists as soft targets. (Please go read what AEN posted in the Aethism forum. )

As it is well-known, science and religion don't mix but AEN and bohiruci believe otherwise and insist that all other people acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism.

An Eternal Now SG

Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:

I disagree that Buddhism is a soft target as Buddhist adherents have be targetting atheists and irreligionists as soft targets. (Please go read what AEN posted in the Aethism forum. )

Excuse me, I have never targetted Atheism or anything. However, I have replied in many threads such as the threads on reincarnation there. Also, what do you mean by targetting irreligionists?

Anyway those atheists should thank me for being the one who suggested to open that forum in the first place. Laughing I was also discussing with laoda99 on that last time.

As it is well-known, science and religion don't mix but AEN and bohiruci believe otherwise and insist that all other people acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism.

Buddhism is a form of science and I have my reasons to believe so. Anyway, off-topic.

An Eternal Now SG

Let me try to explain this forum's stance again..

1) Public, but with rules.
2) No.
3) No. Vulgar simply means foul language such as the four letter words. The forum also does not tolerate senseless insults and trolling.
4) By not respecting others' viewpoints.
5) No.

TheGoodEarth SG

I am a simpleton. Biology is science, biology is not Buddhism.

An Eternal Now SG

Hand is long, hand is not snake? So? Laughing

yamizi SG

HZ,

Sad to say, though AEN is the moderator of this forum and bohiruci had posted many comments, they don't represent buddhism.

The soft targets I refer to are the many other buddhists that I have met.

For whatever reasons AEN and/or bohiruci that is insisting that others to acknowledge the superiority of Buddhism (at least in your impression), I have no idea, but I hope that that will not stop you from studying and understanding the Buddha's Teachings.

Of course, to know Buddhism more or not is up to individual's choice in the end =)

An Eternal Now SG

I don't think I have implied superiority, but rather, Buddhism is the only path that leads to Enlightenment and Liberation. Other practices have their own good but does not lead to Enlightenment. I think this needs to be clarified over and over again cos lots of people just think that Buddhism is just "doing good". Therefore, they don't look any further cos they are 'already good'.

TheGoodEarth SG

Snake is long, rope is long.
Snake is rope.

TheGoodEarth SG

Thanks. But what's your take on different viewpoint being vulgar?

An Eternal Now SG

That is your own delusion, not mine Mr. Green

For me, snake is long, rope is long, fullstop.

An Eternal Now SG

I think different viewpoints are ok as long as they are sensible and you're not attacking others unreasonably.

Chin Eng SG

wah lao... this one quite boh liao... Wink

when in a definition, LENGTH is used, it must be compared to the opposite: what is SHORT.

errr.... you do "CLASSIFICATION" in primary school science or not hah?

TheGoodEarth SG

wah lagi boliao - must compare to opposite. So, my opposite views can be compared to yours? What science? Buddhism or Biology?

yamizi SG

Erm...How come from stricter rules impose becomes snakes and ropes?

Magicians?

An Eternal Now SG

We were originally using it as an analogy for comparing buddhism and biology and science..

Anyway let's get back to topic.

TheGoodEarth SG

Is OK = NO?
That is, different viewpoints are not vulgar.

As for attack: that is what most people and forumers got wrong, even Admin and Moderators! Attacking a statement, post, reply, argument, opinion, comment, utterance, decision - IS PERFECTLY above-board. But many associate that 'attack' as attacking the person, persona and personality!
We are all guilty of this hideous and heinous deed! I am one of those. Would somebody here die for me?

« Previous Page Next Page »