Behold, your God.

[lifegazer]

Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...

Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.
Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.
God is a singularity of being - without beginning or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time.
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens.

[Martin]

What the hell are you raving about?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Martin
What the hell are you raving about?
I was introducing you to the God of Gods, Jock.

[Mercutio]

...and your point is...?

[arcticpenguin]

What's the proper greeting? Will a nice handshake do? If he's Mediterranian I hope I don't have to do the cheek-kissing thing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
...and your point is...?
I'm tired of bozos who don't know the difference between God and spiderman.

[Mercutio]

Hmmm...omnipotent, and yet I know for a fact that Arcticpenguin has had more impact on my life.

...oh, and AP, if we ever meet, any greeting is fine, from bow to handshake to kiss. Just letting you know...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm tired of bozos who don't know the difference between God and spiderman. One is a fictional character with super-powers, and the other wears tights.

[Ossai]

lifegazer
I was introducing you to the God of Gods, Jock.
Which Jock?
Big Jock, Medium Jock, Wee Jock, or Not as big as Medium Jock but bigger than Wee Jock Jock?
(al la Pratchett)

[rdaneel]

I know the difference, Spiderman is way cooler. :D

[lifegazer]

It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend.
Seriously. How can you deny 'God' if you do not even grasp what God is?
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend.
Seriously. How can you deny 'God' if you do not even grasp what God is?
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw. By your own definition, you could not comprehend either--it is beyond your human limitations. So why should I listen to your report?

[Suezoled]

ah, to insult (or attempt to insult?) Mercutio, who is far fairer of tongue (or type) and far dearer a person to humanity (or at least this person) than such a one who insists of a knowledge of god and demands in the name of this god such actions from those who would be, in fact, gifts and creations from and to god. Well, some gifts may be kept by god. I will keep Mercutio. ;) (So to speak)

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend.
Seriously. How can you deny 'God' if you do not even grasp what God is?
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw.

Please define this God-object for us, and tell us how you learned its infinite attritubes to such a degree that you can understand it.

Lifegazer's proposed deity is infinite. Lifegazer has a finite understanding of this God-thing.

Finite amount / Infinity = 0. Lifegazer understands 0% of the God he theorizes. So does LFTKBS. LFTKBS does not grasp what "God" is. Therefore, neither can Lifegazer.

[sackett]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend. . . . .
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw.

Funny, he doesn't sound amused.

And I sure as hail wouldn't get on my knees anywhere near Master Life Grazer.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Suezoled
ah, to insult (or attempt to insult?) Mercutio, who is far fairer of tongue (or type) and far dearer a person to humanity (or at least this person) than such a one who insists of a knowledge of god and demands in the name of this god such actions from those who would be, in fact, gifts and creations from and to god. Well, some gifts may be kept by god. I will keep Mercutio. ;) (So to speak) Oh, my. Am I a kept man? ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
By your own definition, you could not comprehend either--it is beyond your human limitations. So why should I listen to your report?
The definition I presented was not encumbered with limitations.
The God of Gods is beyond all religious definitions too, since religions limit their God or Gods also.
The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.
After you.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The definition I presented was not encumbered with limitations.
The God of Gods is beyond all religious definitions too, since religions limit their God or Gods also.
The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks. Using reason, then...your last sentence contradicts your first. Or can't you see that?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
ah, to insult (or attempt to insult?) Mercutio, who is far fairer of tongue (or type) and far dearer a person to humanity (or at least this person) than such a one who insists of a knowledge of god and demands in the name of this god such actions from those who would be, in fact, gifts and creations from and to god. Well, some gifts may be kept by god. I will keep Mercutio. ;) (So to speak)
Silence wench. This isn't a literary competition. This is about rational definition of your creator.

I've had a word with the big fella and you shall be spared... for the moment.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Silence wench. This isn't a literary competition. This is about rational definition of your creator.

I've had a word with the big fella and you shall be spared... for the moment.
How often do you hear these voices? Have you told your psychiatrist about this?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Please define this God-object for us, and tell us how you learned its infinite attritubes to such a degree that you can understand it.

Easy peasy. Rule out the finite stuff and you're home free. God is everything and the source of those things.
God isn't a small bunch of those things - God is more than the 'good'.

LFTKBS does not grasp what "God" is. Therefore, neither can Lifegazer.
Kiss my... [fill in the blank]

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How often do you hear these voices? Have you told your psychiatrist about this?
Yes. She thanked me profusely and tried to pay me for my services. But I'm a generous kinda guy...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Silence wench. This isn't a literary competition. This is about rational definition of your creator.

I've had a word with the big fella and you shall be spared... for the moment. So we may deduce then, that belief in a god does not make one a good person.


Seriously, you look to be about one signature away from a padded room, bub.

[Suezoled]

I think Lifegazer is trying to show humor.

Or he/she really is a very arrogant git. ;)

[Martin]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I think Lifegazer is trying to show humorYou might be right. Problem is, (s)he's so incoherent the rest of the time it's impossible to tell.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I think Lifegazer is trying to show humor.

Or he/she really is a very arrogant git. ;)
Sounds like a False Dilemna

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend.
Seriously. How can you deny 'God' if you do not even grasp what God is?
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw.

Greetings.

I believe most here grasp what God is It is a belief, a hope and or desire mainly rooted in fear. A belief, while I respect many believe, is still a belief not based in logic not fact. I could again ask that you supply the facts to support your belief but I fear you will only become again angry and name call rather then conduct a mature conversation and explain it is what you BELIEVE and you admit you can not really prove it or offer facts.

Be well my friend.

[volant]

Are You There God? Its Me, Margaret.

[The Lord God Almighty]

Hello, Margaret.

I don't know this lifegeezer person. Is he related to Geezer Butler?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by The Lord God Almighty
Hello, Margaret.

I don't know this lifegeezer person. Is he related to Geezer Butler?
There goes the "omniscient" claim.

[fishbob]

lifegazer sez:It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend. It amuses me that so many people buy into a concept they don't even comprehend. It amuses me even more how silly people can get trying to further these incomprehensible beliefs.

[LFTKBS]

I revise my earlier theory that lifegazer was simply stupid or uneducated. It now appears that s/he is just trying to get a rise out of us and is therefore a troll. Add another one to the ignore list. :rolleyes:

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by fishbob
lifegazer sez: It amuses me that so many people buy into a concept they don't even comprehend. It amuses me even more how silly people can get trying to further these incomprehensible beliefs.
So you're not buying into the incomprehensible = deep and significant myth?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I could again ask that you supply the facts to support your belief but I fear you will only become again angry and name call rather then conduct a mature conversation and explain it is what you BELIEVE and you admit you can not really prove it or offer facts.

Be well my friend.
Let's at least start fearing the right concept. Not finite entities. More importantly, when we discuss this concept, let's engage our brains and realise what it is we are actually contemplating... as in my initial post.

[lifegazer]

btw, the guy who rated this thread with only one star has also rated the sincerity which he/she applies to philosophical discussion.
Frog features.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The definition I presented was not encumbered with limitations.
The God of Gods is beyond all religious definitions too, since religions limit their God or Gods also.
The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

I am glad to know that 'god' is limitless and therefore accepts me just as I am, after all god made me just as I am.

A nihistst pagan buddhist.

God already has awoken my reason, it is just *you* who labels me a dork, god loves me the way I am.

Less, limitless, limitless light, you are aware of the three fold contruction of the viel of non-being I hope,

It would seem that you place great limits upon others lifegazer(although you do remind me of someone), are you sure that you acuratelty reflect a limitless mind?

Would not a limitless mind be a little more accepting?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let's at least start fearing the right concept. Not finite entities. More importantly, when we discuss this concept, let's engage our brains and realise what it is we are actually contemplating... as in my initial post.


Greetings again.


Let's at least start fearing the right concept.


That would be irrelevant to me as I fear nothing and believe in no God or Gods and so fearing you or any concept of what I do not believe in is illogical and a non-issue.

As far as your concept of God what makes it any more real or relevant then the concepts of anyone else that believes in such a thing other then it is your personal concept?

Not finite entities.

Again I understand your understanding of Buddhism is limited but I do not believe the true nature of mind is finite, but it is like energy and matter not being created nor destroyed only changing form.

“I” am not my body nor anything compound so am not as to true nature of mind like the body finite and subject to impermanence. I as “Mark B/Pahansiri am finite.

But again to post to me Not finite entities. is illogical as I do not believe in a God/creator that is finite or infinite. I am not sure in fact of any God believing groups that believe their God is finite but I may be wrong. Regardless your post so far is irrelevant and illogical.

More importantly, when we discuss this concept, let's engage our brains and realise what it is we are actually contemplating... as in my initial post.

Aside from the childish personal attack that anyone who does not agree with you or believe as you do does not have their “brain’s engage” and your misspelling of realize I will look at what is “your” concept of the God idea.


Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.


OK, I know you believe that and do not see how it differs from other people who believe in the God idea so far but before we can discuss what you have said, PROVE IT. Just because you make a statement of belief does not make it true, facts please.


Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.

OK, I know you believe that and do not see how it differs from other people who believe in the God idea so far but before we can discuss what you have said, PROVE IT. Just because you make a statement of belief does not make it true, facts please.

Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.

OK, I know you believe that and do not see how it differs from other people who believe in the God idea so far but before we can discuss what you have said, PROVE IT. Just because you make a statement of belief does not make it true, facts please.

Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.

OK, I know you believe that and do not see how it differs from other people who believe in the God idea so far but before we can discuss what you have said, PROVE IT. Just because you make a statement of belief does not make it true, facts please.


God is a singularity of being - without being or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time.
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens.

OK, I know you believe that and do not see how it differs from other people who believe in the God idea so far but before we can discuss what you have said, PROVE IT. Just because you make a statement of belief does not make it true, facts please.


As I am sure you know deep inside what you have offered is just a belief and I respect that but it is no more then a belief of what you believe a being that you offer no proof for “his” existence, is like.

Be well. I look forward to your data.

[wayrad]

Please put me on the list to be turned into a frog. It sounds far more amusing than being blinded.

[Faithkills]

"I'm tired of bozos who don't know the difference between God and spiderman." - lifegazer

Well, DUH.

God is clearly more on the order of Galactus.

"One is a fictional character with super-powers, and the other wears tights." - Mercutio

Well I saw versions of JC Superstar and Godspell and Jesus wore tights. So I don't think that's a sufficient distinction. But I don't think Jesus would have let Gwen Stacy die. Hell even Superman can go back in time to change things if he needs to. Jesus could do that. Jesus walked on the water and swam on the land. Jesus was way cool.

FK

[Grommitt]

Have you considered having your medication adjusted?

[jj]

Originally posted by Mercutio
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer
It amuses me that so many people mock a concept that they don't even comprehend.
Seriously. How can you deny 'God' if you do not even grasp what God is?
I hope you are typing on your knees, btw.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By your own definition, you could not comprehend either--it is beyond your human limitations. So why should I listen to your report?

Mercuto, could we be dealing with Caliban, here?

Navelgazer: But will he come when you call?

Or is this just Paul returned?

[jj]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


After you.

God of Gods?

If it's a god of gods, and we're its subjects, does that mean we're gods, too?

This must mean (this "god of gods" thing) that there are in fact then many gods.

So, then, how do I know which one is which?

[Ladewig]

Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is


You forgot the most important omni:

Omni-indifferent. The Supreme Being doesn't give a supreme rat's ass about what happens in our space-time continuum. ¹

And if the actual Supreme Being is accurately described in either the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran, then it would be fair to add Ominchauvinistic/Omnisexist.
_____________________________________________

1. One might make a case for the Sureme Being's evidence of interest in our world by his constantly placing images of the mother of the His only son in tree-rings, no parking signs, office windows, and floor stains. Oh, and making statues cry.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

“God” as you have defined “him/it” and by the nature of the concept would need as you say perfect. A perfect all powerful all knowing being could not need, want, desire or be disappointed etc, nor could this being think nor plan.

You need to think out more completely what you believe and say.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I am glad to know that 'god' is limitless and therefore accepts me just as I am, after all god made me just as I am.

True. But God also made me, and I'm here to sort you out. lol

god loves me the way I am.

True. But God's purpose beckons. That purpose requires the shaping-up of mankind. The toilet must be flushed now.

It would seem that you place great limits upon others lifegazer(although you do remind me of someone), are you sure that you acuratelty reflect a limitless mind?

I present, for your attention, a limitless mind. I don't care about what you think of 'lifegazer'.

Would not a limitless mind be a little more accepting?
For my own part, I have had enough of the nonsense, the war, the selfishness, the ignorance, and the foolishness of humanity. Especially bozos who stand proud next to their flag or their church.
I accept none of the above. Whether I loved ya or not, I would accept none of this crap. I'm an angry theist.

[Dancing David]

Yeah!
\
That's great Lifegazer, I don't think you have tro believe in a limitless mind to want the betterment of human kind, I work in a domestic violence shelter, help out a WW-II vet, participate in Boyscouts and volunteer at an animal shelter, I also pick up trash when I go hoking. All as a materialist.

More power to you, I feel that leading the good life is the best way to promote good.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
That would be irrelevant to me as I fear nothing and believe in no God or Gods and so fearing you or any concept of what I do not believe in is illogical and a non-issue.

Behold friends: A closed mind. One which cannot even show you that no God exists... and one which cannot explain existence to you.

Whatever you do, do not close your mind when that mind has no explanation.

[whitefork]

I also pick up trash when I go hokingAround here, we call it "ho-ing" (no "k") when we're out picking up what you call "trash". (as in "Teal Redman is a...")

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
You forgot the most important omni:

Omni-indifferent. The Supreme Being doesn't give a supreme rat's ass about what happens in our space-time continuum.

Who told you that? The news?
Sorry to burst your angry bubble, but having the freedom of choice in our actions and experiencing the flak of our cock-ups is a necessity for grasping true joy and peace.

And if the actual Supreme Being is accurately described in either the Torah, the Bible, or the Koran, then it would be fair to add Ominchauvinistic/Omnisexist________________________________________

Religions with their finite Gods and their foolish followers.
Stick with my definition. God is woman and man... and neither.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Behold friends: A closed mind. One which cannot even show you that no God exists... and one which cannot explain existence to you.

Whatever you do, do not close your mind when that mind has no explanation.

That is a Lovely dance my friend and one expected from one that demands what he believes is the “truth” and all others wrong when he is asked to prove his statements and beliefs.

I nor anyone here really expected you to be honest and offer facts or admit that what you say is your belief and not really fact until you could prove it.

Be well my young friend, you are in way over your head here.

;)

[Andonyx]

Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.


Can he / she / it / they make a pizza so hot even he / she / it / they can't eat it?

[Faithkills]

"Sorry to burst your angry bubble, but having the freedom of choice in our actions and experiencing the flak of our cock-ups is a necessity for grasping true joy and peace." - lifegazer

Why? Couldn't God make people so they can grasp true joy and peace without freedom of choice? And wouldn't this be the more prudent option if one is concerned with the wellbeing of the eternal souls you created to do the experiencing? Not only that we find freedom from choice to be much more peaceful than having to choose.

Further it seems people with little choice seem to be more able to find joy. The wealthy are always concerned with the number of their decisions and the projected outcomes of them as relates to their happiness and wellbeing. The "choice challenged" do seem to be better able to find happiness, as being happy or not becomes one of the salient choices they have left to make.

So all told.. if you are all powerful, why bother with creations that have free choice? And if you are all knowing their free choice is really an illusion.

Only their suffering is real.

FK

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
That is a Lovely dance my friend and one expected from one that demands what he believes is the “truth” and all others wrong when he is asked to prove his statements and beliefs.

What would you think of me if I claimed that materialistic philosophy was nonsense without having an argument to show that it is nonsense (which I do)? Additionally, I had no other philosophy to explain existence (but I have).

Well that's you, my friend, except "materialism" must be replaced by "God", in your case.
Your mind is closed to a concept you cannot show is non-existent, alongside the fact that you cannot even explain existence.
Re-open your mind before it's too late.

I nor anyone here really expected you to be honest and offer facts or admit that what you say is your belief and not really fact until you could prove it.

Where were you in my recent thread? And will you be participating in the thread I have in mind about relativity?

Be well my young friend, you are in way over your head here.

Then be-head me. You will need to. I aim to stir this forum up to a frenzy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Can he / she / it / they make a pizza so hot even he / she / it / they can't eat it?
The God I presented to you is all things, remember. Omnipresent.
So... does a pizza exist which has not been eaten by some entity? Then you have a positive answer to your question.

[Mercutio]

Using your god-given reason, please explain how you logically infer this:
Originally posted by lifegazer

Sorry to burst your angry bubble, but having the freedom of choice in our actions and experiencing the flak of our cock-ups is a necessity for grasping true joy and peace.
From this:Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things. Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself. God is a singularity of being - without being or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens. I mean, it can't simply be belief, can it? Not with your god-given reason...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Using your god-given reason, please explain how you logically infer this:
From this: I mean, it can't simply be belief, can it? Not with your god-given reason...
God is everything. Not just joy or goodness or peace. That's crap. God is even indifference. The whole shebang.
So...
In order that God should claim joy, peace, goodness, etc., God needs to choose certain attributes over others, by logical default. For God is everything, simultaneously, until God chooses otherwise.
Voila... the history of the universe is a narrative of heaven's fulfilment.

Note: I spotted an error in my initial post and have now corrected it - should read "...without beginning or end"

[SkipMagic]

Originally posted by lifegazer
True. But God's purpose beckons.

No, no: that's his finger. And it ain't beckoning...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suezoled
I think Lifegazer is trying to show humor.

Only in a best case scenario...

[lifegazer]

'God' is the only entity worthy of discussion. Everything else is human folly, especially if you're a materialist. But if you don't know what 'God' really means, you aint got a chance.

One short life my friends. Don't waste it scorning a finite definition of God whilst standing-proud next to a flag. And don't be afraid of changing your mind through fear of ridicule from the brainless masses.

Don't be like Pahansiri, who knows nothing about existence and yet proclaims God's non-existence without evidence or reason.

Wake-up call brothers and sisters. I don't give a monkey's uncle what you think of me as long as some actually awake and re-engage their reason.

[Mercutio]

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind, is man.

Alexander Pope (unless memory fails me, in which case, correct me)

One short life, my friends. Don't waste it on this tripe.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of mankind, is man.

And man is?

One short life, my friends. Don't waste it on this tripe.
You have yet to establish that my God is tripe, least of all the initial definition of said concept. You have yet to establish anything.
What is established is that life is short and that lies are lies and that no man here knows of God's non-existence.

How many men here are sincere enough to look? Are you, Mercutio?
I call upon you to look for the real God, before the real death comes looking for you.
Just one short life, my friend.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again lifegazer.

I am beginning to see why you were banned from the other board. While I do not agree with banning someone for just being silly I can see why he or she banned you.


What would you think of me if I claimed that materialistic philosophy was nonsense without having an argument to show that it is nonsense (which I do)?

My friend it is clear that as I have said your knowledge of Buddhism is vastly limited as is your ability to comprehend what I and others write/say to you.

1- Buddhism is not a materialistic philosophy I have tried to explain this to you but it seems as of yet you have not grasped this fact.
2- What would I think of you if you claimed that materialistic philosophy was nonsense without having an argument to show that it is nonsense I would think the same of you as I do about you demanding there is a creator without providing even one tiny fact to support it. I respect everyone regardless of what they choose to believe.
3- As to you proving materialistic philosophy is nonsense? Your making such a statement is what is nonsense.

Additionally, I had no other philosophy to explain existence (but I have).

You have not explained existence, you have explained what you believe is the source of existence. That being the most simple explanation “ God did it”. But of course when asked to support your position you refuse to provide any proof. Your position explanation requires no thinking and avoids it. You demand we do not have an open mind but it is you who does not.

There may be a God or 2 or a billion I can not prove there is not or care, what I can prove is there is no proof and you offer none.

Well that's you, my friend, except "materialism" must be replaced by "God", in your case.

For the umpteenth time Buddhism is NOT a materialistic philosophy, I am not a materialist, read this sentence over and over…lol

I do not have to replace materialism with God, I do not believe in either but would lean towards materialistic philosophy as being more logical then the God idea.


Your mind is closed to a concept you cannot show is non-existent, alongside the fact that you cannot even explain existence.

LOL..

My mind is wide open my friend it is yours that is fixated on this one belief you cling to.

Remember YOU have the burden of proof not I. You demand a creator is fact yet offer no facts. I do not have to prove you are wrong until you prove you are right.

As to I or Buddhism not having an explanation of existence, you as I have said have much to learn about Buddhism. The Buddhist beliefs as to existence are very clear and detailed and I have offered what we believe many times.

You are not doing very well, are you ever right? Lol Just kidding I am sure you have been about, well something.


Re-open your mind before it's too late.

My young friend my mind is fully open I am not afraid to be wrong when proven to be so. I will believe anything that is fact and truth. You need only prove it to me as of yet you have not.

hen be-head me. You will need to. I aim to stir this forum up to a frenzy.

How very mature. Why not just conduct a mature respectful conversation and debate with others here. When you make a statement of fact provide the facts if it is a statement of belief say that and that will be respected.

Be well I would again ask for facts but have given up any hope for that so be well.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

I am beginning to see why you were banned from the other board. While I do not agree with banning someone for just being silly I can see why he or she banned you.

I was banned by bozos like yourself who were uncomfortable with the challenge I brought to their closed minds. But I don't lick butts for survival's sake. If I am to be banned from this forum, then sobeit. But I shall make my mark in the meantime and expose the nonsense of skepticism/materialism/atheism, buddhism too, etc., whilst I am granted an audience. Deal with it. But don't make shifty threats whilst having the gall to call me "friend" mid-sentence.
I call a spade a spade squire. I speak the truth and abhor nonsense and insincerity. If you cannot deal with that then I suggest you avoid my threads.
I don't play your game squire. Can you handle me or not?

[Ladewig]

Ladewig-
Omni-indifferent. The Supreme Being doesn't give a supreme rat's ass about what happens in our space-time continuum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lifegazer-
Sorry to burst your angry bubble, but having the freedom of choice in our actions and experiencing the flak of our cock-ups is a necessity for grasping true joy and peace.

As for your necessity of freedom of choice theory, I'll be sure to mention that to

--the father of a drowned child "Hello, sir, I just wanted to let you know that the omniscient Supreme Being watched your child drown and the selfsame ominpotent S.B. didn't raise a finger to prevent it because freedom of choice is the one and only way you all could grasp true joy and peace."

--the child born with a genetic defect that will prevent her from living past 10 years. "freedom of choice, blah, blah, true joy and peace. Get it?"

--the wife whose husband was killed by religious bigots who were upset that he shaved part of his beard "Even though you never had a choice about leaving this area or choosing a different religion or deciding whether the government should punish these types of lynch mobs - your husband's murders needed to have free will so that others could experience true joy."

Lastly do you have any kind of evidence whatsoever, that "true joy" can be achieved only through freedom of choice? or is this assertion just something that a Scotsman told you?


lifegazer
Religions with their finite Gods and their foolish followers.
Stick with my definition.


:id: you do realize that every western religion says, "those other foolish religions have the worng definition of God. Stick with our definition." So far, I can't see much difference between you and them.

[Pahansiri]

I was banned by bozos like yourself who were uncomfortable with the challenge I brought to their closed minds.

The more you are pushed for facts to support your beliefs and statements the more you fall apart and into childish retort and name calling. You were banned I have found out was for doing what you are doing not. Making statements and refusing to support with facts or logical conclusion what you have said.

What you consider a ‘closed mind “ is one who will not just say to you “ Oh yes you are right” the fact is you do not like open minds.

But I don't lick butts for survival's sake.

It seems being mature and respectful, factual and logical is what they and we seek not a butt lick…How mature.


If I am to be banned from this forum, then sobeit. But I shall make my mark in the meantime and expose the nonsense of skepticism/materialism/atheism, buddhism too, etc., whilst I am granted an audience.

The problem is you have only exposed the nonsense of your beliefs and actions.


Deal with it. But don't make shifty threats whilst having the gall to call me "friend" mid-sentence.


My friend I will ask you to show from my post, my words where I made any threats. I will not hold my breath.


I call a spade a spade squire. I speak the truth and abhor nonsense and insincerity.

Really I have not seen you do such.

If you cannot deal with that then I suggest you avoid my threads.
I don't play your game squire. Can you handle me or not?

I have handled you like Mohammed Ali would handle a boxer with no arms.

Be well.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...

Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.
Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.
God is a singularity of being - without beginning or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time.
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens.

And here I am, but you can call me c4ts. Start bowing people.

But seriously, what we have here is just speculation. Or it could be a joke. Since God is supposedly able to create anything, could God create a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
As for your necessity of freedom of choice theory, I'll be sure to mention that to

--the father of a drowned child "Hello, sir, I just wanted to let you know that the omniscient Supreme Being watched your child drown and the selfsame ominpotent S.B. didn't raise a finger to prevent it because freedom of choice is the one and only way you all could grasp true joy and peace."

Listen pal, you're either a puppet without a mind or a mind who doesn't want to be a puppet. You cannot have it both ways and you cannot complain when the strings are severed and you fall over.

Lastly do you have any kind of evidence whatsoever, that "true joy" can be achieved only through freedom of choice? or is this assertion just something that a Scotsman told you?

I never learned anything from a Scotsman except how to complain about ones consequences.

:id: you do realize that every western religion says, "those other foolish religions have the worng definition of God. Stick with our definition." So far, I can't see much difference between you and them.
One giant difference: I won't be blaming "imperfections" on the devil or Englishmen. Everything is God.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Everything is God.

If everything is God, how are you able to differentiate between God and everything? Seems to me like you're just playing that game where you switch around the definitions of things.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I speak the truth and abhor nonsense and insincerity.

This is ironic, because everything you've said so far is pretty much nonsense.

Just a note.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts


If everything is God, how are you able to differentiate between God and everything? Seems to me like you're just playing that game where you switch around the definitions of things.
Easy. ~Things~ rarely know themselves as God and even rarer do they act as God.
Me included. I'm strong on the knowing side and learning on the being side.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by TheERK


This is ironic, because everything you've said so far is pretty much nonsense.

Just a note.
You forgot to note what those nonsenses were, Charlie. And you certainly forgot to explain them.
Why don't you do just that? I cannot wait.
*sharpens the sword of reason, just for Charlie*.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How many men here are sincere enough to look? Are you, Mercutio?
I call upon you to look for the real God, before the real death comes looking for you.
Just one short life, my friend.
There is no reason for you to know this--some here do--but I am quite willing to look. Trouble is, your assumption is off by about 180 degrees. I was quite religious, once upon a time, but had a mind open enough to examine my beliefs. It took some time, but through the method you propose--sincere examination of beliefs with an open mind--I concluded that "god" adds nothing to the world that cannot be explained just as well without "god". As Pahansiri here has said, I cannot prove nor disprove the actual existence of a god. Neither can you. The difference is, I see no need for one, whereas you desparately need one.

I am perfectly willing to change my mind; I've done it before. (have you?) All I require is evidence. Someone as certain as you seem to be must have either a great deal of evidence, or a great need to believe despite no evidence. I think everybody here knows which you are.

Hmmm....and besides...if what you say is true, why must I need to look for the real god before the real death comes? What possible difference could it make? Is there something else you are not telling us? Is this infinite being going to pissed off at little old me for not believing? Why? Will I be any less, or more, dead for believing? How incredibly shallow this god is.

[EdipisReks]

who cares about god? afterall, dread Cthulhu ate him last week.

[fishbob]

Whatever you do, do not close your mind when that mind has no explanation. So, you have made up your mind to propose a concept that evidence can not support and you warn us not to close our minds? I believe that lifegazer likes the sound of his own voice (the sound of his own keyboard anyway) and will natter on until he tires out. Wacka Wacka Wacka.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Point of fact for Life Saver (pep-o-mint?)

By definition in Buddhism, as presented to you earlier, the mind is infinite and unending. The mind exists through the transcendence of death and "I" do not exist, except as mind, for the body is merely a shell.

Therefor, by your very own definition, since I am mind, which is, as believed by Buddhists, infinite and unending, I am God.

And if I am God, and infinite, unending and perfect, as the mind is perfect, then nothing else may be god. So your definition falls, since God, as you say, is all things.

I stand by neither flag nor church, Life-guy-whoever. I stand by what is known to me and what is unknown to me. What is known to me is that God is not needed, and therefore, by every definition (even yours) conNOT exists, for to be all powerful is to be all needed.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
By definition in Buddhism, as presented to you earlier, the mind is infinite and unending. The mind exists through the transcendence of death and "I" do not exist, except as mind, for the body is merely a shell.

Buddhists don't believe in a sentient God or being. Not as far as I'm aware.

Therefor, by your very own definition, since I am mind, which is, as believed by Buddhists, infinite and unending, I am God.

'you' are not God. 'you' are a perception within God's mind.

And if I am God, and infinite, unending and perfect, as the mind is perfect, then nothing else may be god. So your definition falls, since God, as you say, is all things.

You're stating that God cannot think of more than one thing at a time?
Awareness is always flooded with a multitude of things. Sometimes, even as we sleep.
I'm sorry Mr. Friggin, but 'you' are just a thing. God is the entity who creates and becomes aware of you. If you want to know yourself as God, you have to forget about being a thing.

I stand by neither flag nor church, Life-guy-whoever. I stand by what is known to me and what is unknown to me.

What would that be then?

What is known to me is that God is not needed

Thanks for pointing this out to us. Listen out ladies & gents whilst some friggin guy proceeds to explain the origin of universal forces which have yielded the effects we see. This is important, so pay attention.
Okay Frigger, you have their attention. Now explain existence please.
If you cannot, then retract this crock of a statement and open that mind of yours before your time runs out.

, and therefore, by every definition (even yours) conNOT exists, for to be all powerful is to be all needed.
To be all things, and to have all power, is to eliminate need. Reason check.

[lifegazer]

Hey Bob. That picture is a fake. There's no way a little fish like that could catch a big ugly bozo.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I was quite religious, once upon a time, but had a mind open enough to examine my beliefs. It took some time, but through the method you propose--sincere examination of beliefs with an open mind--I concluded that "god" adds nothing to the world that cannot be explained just as well without "god".

What about universal force and universal order, for starters?

I am perfectly willing to change my mind; I've done it before. (have you?)

Sure. I once bought into the nonsense that science could explain the origin of things.

All I require is evidence. Someone as certain as you seem to be must have either a great deal of evidence, or a great need to believe despite no evidence. I think everybody here knows which you are.

Stick around. I've got several arguments.

Hmmm....and besides...if what you say is true, why must I need to look for the real god before the real death comes? What possible difference could it make? Is there something else you are not telling us? Is this infinite being going to pissed off at little old me for not believing? Why? Will I be any less, or more, dead for believing? How incredibly shallow this god is.
There is no death. There is only the elimination of a specific perception. But is it compulsory that God should eliminate the perception of a life eternally, and/or not resurrect a life God has enjoyed?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Stick around. I've got several arguments.
Just when were you thinking of using any?

There is no death. There is only the elimination of a specific perception. But is it compulsory that God should eliminate the perception of a life eternally, and/or not resurrect a life God has enjoyed? Hmmmm Why would not god enjoy my life? I certainly am. Sounds like I'm having more fun than you are..

[LW]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens.

And after that, meet the God of God of Gods, a heavenly being even more powerful and omni-everything than the God of Gods.

And after that, there's also the God of Meta-Gods, who is the God of all (God of)* Gods.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW


And after that, meet the God of God of Gods, a heavenly being even more powerful and omni-everything than the God of Gods.

And after that, there's also the God of Meta-Gods, who is the God of all (God of)* Gods.
Dummy post.
How can there be a God greater than an omni-God?

[Some Friggin Guy]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Buddhists don't believe in a sentient God or being. Not as far as I'm aware.

This is correct
Thanks for pointing this out to us. Listen out ladies & gents whilst some friggin guy proceeds to explain the origin of universal forces which have yielded the effects we see. This is important, so pay attention.
Okay Frigger, you have their attention. Now explain existence please.

As described in Buddhism, existence is an illusion of mind. All things physical are merely restraints placed upon one's self.

To be all things, and to have all power, is to eliminate need. Reason check.

Reason check yourself. I did not say it was being all NEEDING, but all needED.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What about universal force and universal order, for starters?

Dearest Lifegrazer, you have proved local force or order yet, so I don't think you should sling that around yet. Prove a definition of order and then we can examine if it is universal. I won't derail but this is something you could still demonstrate.

Sure. I once bought into the nonsense that science could explain the origin of things.
Science is about observation not ontology, and there could have been a Grand Committee that deigned the universe, not some Vast and Empty Mind.

Stick around. I've got several arguments.
Really? You don't argue dear sir, you use demogogery and monolouge , and so far all your arguments are the same.

There is no death. There is only the elimination of a specific perception. But is it compulsory that God should eliminate the perception of a life eternally, and/or not resurrect a life God has enjoyed?

Any evidence, or just more assertion based upon speculation.

God is unnessecary for well being, the creator made me perfectly content to not need him and still be joyous. The creator made you perfectly content to believe in him and still be joyous.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Buddhists don't believe in a sentient God or being. Not as far as I'm aware.

This is correct

Well then this seems at odds with your next statement here, which essentially reduces existence to the Mind itself - a sentient medium of existence:

As described in Buddhism, existence is an illusion of mind. All things physical are merely restraints placed upon one's self.

If everything in existence is an illusion occuring within the mind, then existence is the Mind having those illusions.
Clearly, this equates existence to a sentient entity, which actually is at odds with Buddhist beliefs, and which you agree with.
It's also what my philosophy - monistic idealism - states.

[lifegazer]

David, if you wasn't such a nice guy, you'd be a frog by now.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Dummy post.
How can there be a God greater than an omni-God? How can there not be?

It ain't frogs, bubba, it's turtles, all the way up and down!

[wraith]

Originally posted by Martin
What the hell are you raving about?

hahaha
...the humour is excessive!

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by lifegazer
'God' is the only entity worthy of discussion. Everything else is human folly, especially if you're a materialist. But if you don't know what 'God' really means, you aint got a chance.

One short life my friends. Don't waste it scorning a finite definition of God whilst standing-proud next to a flag. And don't be afraid of changing your mind through fear of ridicule from the brainless masses.

Don't be like Pahansiri, who knows nothing about existence and yet proclaims God's non-existence without evidence or reason.

Wake-up call brothers and sisters. I don't give a monkey's uncle what you think of me as long as some actually awake and re-engage their reason.

Isn't Lifegazer another person who believes in an afterlife? Lifegazer is eternal because god is eternal? So, what's this about One short Life?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Isn't Lifegazer another person who believes in an afterlife? Lifegazer is eternal because god is eternal? So, what's this about One short Life?
God is eternal. Lifegazer's destiny resides in time and only God can choose to sustain, or even resurrect, such a life. But there's no guarantees.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
David, if you wasn't such a nice guy, you'd be a frog by now.

During my initiation as a witch High Priest I was given FrogProof (TM) by the wiccan council of elders, they also gave me a two week vacation at Mt. Walpurgis.

[Ladewig]

Lifegazer, I have followed your argument as best I could and one problem I find is that you have assumed monotheism without any evidence. What if it took several Gods to create the universe - it is a pretty big place? Why can't there be two or even five eternal beings that transcend space and time.

[spejic]

Originally posted by c4ts
Since God is supposedly able to create anything, could God create a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it? He is always able to eat the burrito. Not only is he omnipotent, omniscient, and a former subscriber to Omni magazine, but he is also omnivorous, and thus able to eat anything!

[lifegazer]

"Can he / she / it / they make a pizza so hot even he / she / it / they can't eat it?"

My response: "The God I presented to you is all things, remember. Omnipresent.
So... does a pizza exist which has not been eaten by some entity? Then you have a positive answer to your question."

For pizza, insert burrito. Same response.

For two years I have had to endure the infamous omnipotent paradox in its many guises - rocks, pizzas, and burritos.
There is no paradox.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Lifegazer, I have followed your argument as best I could and one problem I find is that you have assumed monotheism without any evidence.

1. This thread wasn't intended as a proof of God's existence. I wanted to address the definition of 'God'. What is 'God'? If you think about it, the question is not disimilar to asking "What is nothing?", or, "What is infinity?".
Though we cannot grasp nothing and though we cannot prove the existence of any infinite quantity, we can surely apply reason to defining the meaning of that concept within our minds, regardless. Similarly, reason can be applied to embrace the meaning of a creator-being.
2. You say I assume monotheism when in fact it is impossible for rationale to identify the concept of God in relation to a finite entity. Finite entities are really just effects dependent upon a greater embracing-whole for their own existence. And given that
the whole essence of Godness is sovereignity/causality over existence itself, in what sense can reason define God as a finite entity within that existence, dependent upon that existence, and limited to what influence it has over the rest of existence?

What if it took several Gods to create the universe - it is a pretty big place? Why can't there be two or even five eternal beings that transcend space and time.
No space and no time? Yet 5 beings existing in the same spot in the same moment?
That cannot happen, except in the mind's eye. Think about it.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Can he / she / it / they make a pizza so hot even he / she / it / they can't eat it?"

My response: "The God I presented to you is all things, remember. Omnipresent.
So... does a pizza exist which has not been eaten by some entity? Then you have a positive answer to your question."

For pizza, insert burrito. Same response.

For two years I have had to endure the infamous omnipotent paradox in its many guises - rocks, pizzas, and burritos.
There is no paradox.

Yet another direct contradiction to an earlier statement by you The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks. posted 11-17-2003 10:07 AM

A rather feeble God that has desires, wants and needs and frustrations such neither all powerful or all knowing nor Omnipresent.

Do you really know what you believe?

[Pahansiri]

1. This thread wasn't intended as a proof of God's existence. I wanted to address the definition of 'God'. What is 'God'?


You mean what the concept of God is to you, what you believe if such a being existed it would be like. If you are saying this is what God “is” then you as I and all have said FIRST must prove God then move on to proving what it is.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Yet another direct contradiction to an earlier statement by you posted 11-17-2003 10:07 AM

A rather feeble God that has desires, wants and needs and frustrations such neither all powerful or all knowing nor Omnipresent.

Do you really know what you believe?
I have no idea why what you posted here refutes the "no paradox" post. Please clarify.

[lifegazer]

Do you comprehend the fundamentals of 'relativity' Pahansiri?
I wanted to discuss it but upchurch has been abducted or something.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea why what you posted here refutes the "no paradox" post. Please clarify.

Really:con2: Read it again slowly.

If there is nothing "god" can not do because "he" is all then "he" can not want, desire etc "us" who would be "he" to do anything because we would be "he" and the actions would be "he".

You as is so often the case ignored what the post said.

How can an all powerful all knowing being do as you say "he' does here?

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

as I said A rather feeble God that has desires, wants and needs and frustrations such neither all powerful or all knowing nor Omnipresent.

I really do not expect you to answer in a mature way.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you comprehend the fundamentals of 'relativity' Pahansiri?
I wanted to discuss it but upchurch has been abducted or something.

A lovely dance around addressing a point or answering a question. As to our friend upchurch I am sure he is hiding in fear from you.:rub:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
How can an all powerful all knowing being do as you say "he' does here?



as I said A rather feeble God that has desires, wants and needs and frustrations such neither all powerful or all knowing nor Omnipresent.

I really do not expect you to answer in a mature way.
God is not frustrated. I am frustrated. God has desire, that's why God created ~this~ in the first place. God has purpose. That's why there is an order to all of this. And God's will shall be done, for what other forces exist to oppose the forces which God itself has created?
I am in a hurry to see things change. God however already knows the end.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


A lovely dance around addressing a point or answering a question. As to our friend upchurch I am sure he is hiding in fear from you.:rub:
I'll consider that a "No, I don't.".

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God is not frustrated. I am frustrated. God has desire, that's why God created ~this~ in the first place. God has purpose. That's why there is an order to all of this. And God's will shall be done, for what other forces exist to oppose the forces which God itself has created?
I am in a hurry to see things change. God however already knows the end.




God is not frustrated


Let us again review
1- prove God
2- Prove you do and you do know what this being thinks and feels, that is after you prove it’s existence.
3- Again I refer back to your earlier statement which seems clearly to contradict this new assertion The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.
But we have become use to your contradictions, as I will demonstrate the many in this new post by you.


I am frustrated.

Yes you are. Like is normal for a young child still immature. Like such a child in a room filled with adults, a party. The child does all he can for attention. He demands he can do a magic trick over and over he says he can and the adults ask him to show he can each time he fails and becomes more angry at the adults for his failures.

This will change with maturity we adults have all been where you are. We, I know I do respect and like you and understand why you act as you do.

God has desire

Let us again review
1- prove God
2- Prove you do and you do know what this being thinks and feels, that is after you prove it’s existence.
3- Again I refer back to your earlier statement which seems clearly to contradict this new assertion Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...
Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.
Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.
God is a singularity of being - without beginning or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time..
4- A perfect, all powerful all knowing being can not by the very nature of being these things is not capable of thought ( all knowing) or desires.

Desires are based in a weakness, needs a need to have something it is not or can not be or have. If your God is all things it can not desire to be anything not have anything for it does it is then not all things.

Desires lead to suffering and of course require thought and a all knowing mind has nothing to think about as it would know everything, remember YOU said “he” knows everything.. If he desires people to believe like he wants them too it is his fault. A perfect being could only make perfect things or it would not be perfect if it is not perfect then he is either not perfect or he make it to be not perfect.

Also if he knows everything before it happens he can not desire something to do what he knows it can not nor will not. And if it will in time do the action then he does not desire it because he already knows it will happen so in “his” reality it has happened already

Think boy think



I will add it really should be us who should be frustrated because you refuse to answer . But as aduts we understand why you act as you do as we have all done it.


that's why God created ~this~ in the first place.

Let us again review
1- prove God
2- Prove you do and you do know what this being thinks and feels, that is after you prove it’s existence.


God has purpose.

Let us again review
1- prove God
2- Prove you do and you do know what this being thinks and feels, that is after you prove it’s existence.


That's why there is an order to all of this.

No the reason there is order to all this is because there is an order to all this, no need to plug in a unknown to explain a known.

May I offer a quote by David Brooks.
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
 David Brooks


And God's will shall be done, for what other forces exist to oppose the forces which God itself has created?

Then why are you ranting and posting statements like this The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

STOP and think before you post, lead with logic not emotion and a need to be seen.



I am in a hurry to see things change. God however already knows the end.

Really? Lol And you are going to “save the world”

As to “God however already knows the end.” Then why post this HUGE self contradicting statement?

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.


My friend it is clear you are an intelligent kid you simply do not think things out and are driven by ego and emotion. Relax and have a mature conversation with others here. STOP telling people what is the truth and name calling and say things you BELIEVE to be truth then exchange thoughts and ideas.

May you be well and happy.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'll consider that a "No, I don't.".

:rub:

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do you comprehend the fundamentals of 'relativity' Pahansiri?
I wanted to discuss it but upchurch has been abducted or something.

I think that UpC has been abducted by his newly wedded wife and that they are enjoying matrimonial bliss. there are plenty of us who can disciss elementary relativity, you may claim again that your questions aren't being anwered.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God is not frustrated. I am frustrated. God has desire, that's why God created ~this~ in the first place. God has purpose. That's why there is an order to all of this. And God's will shall be done, for what other forces exist to oppose the forces which God itself has created?
I am in a hurry to see things change. God however already knows the end.

This is where we get into the whole POV thing and why the word assertion is used to refute your line of argument.


God has desire, that's why God created ~this~ in the first place.

This contains two assertions in one, like double mint gum, god has desire is your belief and an assertion. God created *this* is another believe and assertion. They are both untestable and unknowable hypotheses so they are open to speculation, and an assertion does not proof make.


That's why there is an order to all of this.

Dear sibling, this is another assertion based upon your bvelief, are you sure that algorithims and rules equates to order? The one thing that I do not see when I look through the mind's eye is order, I see rules and relationships but they see to combine in a most unorderly way.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Desires are based in a weakness, needs a need to have something it is not or can not be or have. If your God is all things it can not desire to be anything not have anything for it does it is then not all things.

God is. What God will be or will have can only be made in relation to something else. I.e., choices require relations. Relations = relativity = time.

Desiring the all-encompassing feeling of joy for itself is not a weakness.

Desires lead to suffering and of course require thought and a all knowing mind has nothing to think about as it would know everything, remember YOU said “he” knows everything.

Who, in relation to my philosophy, suffers but God itself? Nobody, since nobody else exists, except as an illusion.
All is an illusion within the mind. You said it yourself. Which means that Mind is the only reality.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings again lifegazer


I was hoping to find a response that addressed all my points and answered my questions and at least tried to defend his statements where I demonstrated the contractions and flaws in them. What I find is this slim attempt but it is what was expected, sad because I truly believe you are a very smart kid who simply fears true conversation and being wrong. My point here is not even to prove you wrong but to challenge you and have you respond in a logical and honest way.

I will give you the respect you have not shown me or others and again answer your complete post below but know it is fruitless.



God is.

I would ask you to prove that but that has shown itself to be an exercise in futility.

What God will be or will have can only be made in relation to something else.

That is not logical, if this God is a prime mover a creator or all that is this requires there to first be just this God if your God is dependent on what it creates and the relationship to the creation there can be no God. Think about what you say.

An all powerful being can not be defined by something external.

I.e., choices require relations. Relations = relativity = time.

Silliness. If your God created all and is all it is not controlled or defined etc by what it created.

Desiring the all-encompassing feeling of joy for itself is not a weakness.

desiring and joy are not the same thing, desiring is seeking joy is a present state. THINK!!!



Who, in relation to my philosophy, suffers but God itself? Nobody, since nobody else exists, except as an illusion.

As I have pointed out in this Einstein quote:
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -- Albert Einstein

But I am happy you call it your philosophy, and that I respect. You did not just demand all who do not believe as you do are lost, dumb, blind etc. That is childish ego silliness that is not helpful and history shows has made so many suffer and brand death to many.

I respect that this is what you BELIEVE.

Back to the point.

Yes everything in reality is an illusion in that nothing is in and of itself, self, there is no car, no you no hand etc. All compound things are impairment and comprised of non-self elements. We as Buddhist believe like matter and energy the true nature of mind can not, is not created nor destroyed.

We believe ignorance, cravings, desires etc keep “us” this true nature of mind trapped in the cycle of rebirth and death. It is not a self, a set unchanging Mark B/ pahansiri that will reborn as in reality there is no “real” Mark B. I am most greatly the result of countless causes and condition and my body well we already discussed that is not “self”

But as to what is your reality now, yes “you” suffer and that can be proven your belief that only “god” is suffering is a belief and not proven and irrelevant.

If such a being exist and suffers it is his fault only he can cause it and end it.




All is an illusion within the mind. You said it yourself. Which means that Mind is the only reality.


In the most profound reality yes. But If you believe you can control this and it is just in your mind then why do you not stand in front of a train? Why eat? Why because Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." -- Albert Einstein

As to only mind exist this is my belief but I will never demand to others that it is the ONLY truth and they who do not believe are fools and lost, why because I can not prove it or even desire to, who cares.

BUT I can prove there is mind now there is a base for moving forward for the God idea there is no facts no base other then belief.

But, as I do not fear being wrong nor in any way believe I know everything or even anything you could be right or Joe Blow could be. If something is proven to be fact to me and if it contradicts what I now believe I will abandon what I now believe to do less would be silliness.

But just because you tell me what you are saying is true and I need believe it because you say it is, that is silliness.

Be well.

[Dancing David]

I think that this is a fine philosophical point here, to say that god has a want or a desire is an anthropo-morphism onto god.

So if we attribute a human chacarteristic to god, then that makes god more human-like and therefore open god up to all the human traits of imperfection.

I think you are still glossing over the acts of extreme suffering, god would not need extreme suffering to have joy, joy is not proportionate to suffering, you haven't proved that more a priori assertion.

[jj]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
I was hoping to find a response that addressed all my points and answered my questions and at least tried to defend his statements where I demonstrated the contractions and flaws in them. What I find is this slim attempt but it is what was expected, sad because I truly believe you are a very smart kid who simply fears true conversation and being wrong. My point here is not even to prove you wrong but to challenge you and have you respond in a logical and honest way.


May I say that while I sometimes disagree with what you have to say, your patience in this thread is admirable, even if it's probably futile (as you seem to realize yourself).

I've put Lifegrazer on ignore, myself. He reads like a fellow who's shown up at iidb, with similar "logic".

[LawnOven]

haha, this thread is goofy :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that this is a fine philosophical point here, to say that god has a want or a desire is an anthropo-morphism onto god.

How do you expect any entity - least of all God - to achieve any purpose without:
(a) wanting to achieve that purpose.
(b) having the power and will to effect that purpose.
?

Your complaint - and Pahansiri's complaint - is nonsense. God would not effect anything unless God obviously wanted to effect those things. And let's face a fact here: God is everything simultaneously or/and God can experience specific things in time/change.
So, God has a choice: be everything simultaneously, or experience specific things in relation to one another.
You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another. You got me on that one--I have not noticed any reason whatsoever in your arguments about god.

A dumb question for you: Do you think we are actively trying to either misunderstand or misrepresent your views? (if so, why?) Or is it possible that our honest efforts have not matched up with yours? If the latter is the case...perhaps you should try a different tactic--assuming, of course, that the matter is as important as you seem to be suggesting...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How do you expect any entity - least of all God - to achieve any purpose without:
(a) wanting to achieve that purpose.

As I have stated before this is an anthropomorphism upon the concept of gad, at the risk of repetition, it is your assertion that god has a purpose. Could it not be that there is a more neutral or passive god? There are two assertion here, one that gods wants and another that god has purpose.

(b) having the power and will to effect that purpose.
?

Your complaint - and Pahansiri's complaint - is nonsense. God would not effect anything unless God obviously wanted to effect those things.
This is again your assertion and belief about god, assertion that gods effects because of want. Still an assertion. No proof.
And let's face a fact here: God is everything simultaneously or/and God can experience specific things in time/change.

Perhaps we differ in our use of the word fact, god's this and god is that is an assertion and a belief. No proof of fact

So, God has a choice: be everything simultaneously, or experience specific things in relation to one another.
You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another.

More assertions, somewhat like the elephants on the turtles.

I believe that you have yet to really examine your logic, these are beliefs that you assert to be true, they are just beliefs and assertion.

I assert that god could be multiple and purposeless.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by LawnOven
haha, this thread is goofy :)

There are many goofy threads on this forum!

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How do you expect any entity - least of all God - to achieve any purpose without:
(a) wanting to achieve that purpose.
(b) having the power and will to effect that purpose.
?

Your complaint - and Pahansiri's complaint - is nonsense. God would not effect anything unless God obviously wanted to effect those things. And let's face a fact here: God is everything simultaneously or/and God can experience specific things in time/change.
So, God has a choice: be everything simultaneously, or experience specific things in relation to one another.
You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How do you expect any entity - least of all God - to achieve any purpose without:
(a) wanting to achieve that purpose.
(b) having the power and will to effect that purpose.
?

Your complaint - and Pahansiri's complaint - is nonsense. God would not effect anything unless God obviously wanted to effect those things. And let's face a fact here: God is everything simultaneously or/and God can experience specific things in time/change.
So, God has a choice: be everything simultaneously, or experience specific things in relation to one another.
You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another.

Originally posted by lifegazer


How do you expect any entity - least of all God - to achieve any purpose without:
(a) wanting to achieve that purpose.
(b) having the power and will to effect that purpose.

1- I do not believe anyone who does not believe in a God expects it to do anything. Prove God is your first step but we have covered this already, well I have.
2- A perfect all powerful all knowing being can NOT want or desire or think or plan. If they can they are not all knowing all powerful or perfect.

[quoute]Your complaint - and Pahansiri's complaint - is nonsense.[/quote]


1-The proper grammar or sentence structure would be to use are and not “is”
2- What we have presented is not complaints but logical conclusions and facts proving you wrong os again the wrong word is use here.

God would not effect anything unless God obviously wanted to effect those things.

1- Still waiting for among many other things for you to prove God then how you know what “he” thinks
2- First you need to Prove God, then prove he does or does not wish to effect things.
3- If I make a cake I have effected it as I created it. I know what kind of cake it will be before it is done.


[quoute] And let's face a fact here: God is everything simultaneously or/and God can experience specific things in time/change.[/quote]


What facts??? Did I miss you posting the facts that proved God???

So, God has a choice: be everything simultaneously, or experience specific things in relation to one another.[/quote

Can you prove this?


[quote]You guys have yet to note the distinction between both states. Nor have you noticed the reason why God would obviously choose to act to achieve one specific state in relation to another.

This is completely irrelevant even if true because you have not proven God.

If I say Big Foot can swim because other animals swim does that mean big foot exists?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by jj


May I say that while I sometimes disagree with what you have to say, your patience in this thread is admirable, even if it's probably futile (as you seem to realize yourself).

I've put Lifegrazer on ignore, myself. He reads like a fellow who's shown up at iidb, with similar "logic".

Greetings jj.

Thank you. And I respect you do not agree with all I say I ask no one to agree with me or for anything ( well I do ask for facts but some like our friend Lifegrazer just refuse..lol).

I respect all and seek never to be unkind and always respectful. I can be a ball buster and try to do so with logical sarcasm and not go too far when I do.


Lifegrazer is a good kid and intelligent I believe his ego gets in his way of logic and truth. Just what I believe.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...

Omnipotent. God has all power. God effects all force... all creation.
Omniscient. God knows how to do anything.
Omnipresent. God is everywhere and nowhere, everytime and no-time. God, therefore, by default, is expressing itself as all things.
Good & evil are potentials existing within God itself.
God is a singularity of being - without beginning or end. Without position or momentum, until God creates it so, through perception of space & time.
You name it, God creates it for ya. Roll up roll up and meet the God of Gods. On your knees heathens. I was going to say "ya had me until the last sentence; what does such a God need me to worship Him for?", but I think I'll just sit back and be entertained by all the rest of the wonderful people there.

(Where's that Popcorn icon when you need it?)

[uruk]

*snip* Not just any ol' God. The God. The daddy of all Gods. The unsurpassable God of Gods...etc.

Same old hindu/buddist, philosophical poetic claptrap. Nothing new.
*yawn* wake me up when you have something new.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by uruk


Same old hindu/buddist, philosophical poetic claptrap. Nothing new.
*yawn* wake me up when you have something new. :confused:


Buddhist believe in NO God no creator and Hindus believe in millions of them.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by uruk


Same old hindu/buddist, philosophical poetic claptrap. Nothing new.
*yawn* wake me up when you have something new.

Whoa there you scaly alien, and great poster. Buddhism in and of itself is not involved in those statement, the buddha seemed to have been a non-diest, he taught a practise twowards freedom, don't mistake the hindu poetry for the buddhist. There were followers of the buddha who added a lot of stuff.

Carry on.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk


Same old hindu/buddist, philosophical poetic claptrap. Nothing new.
*yawn* wake me up when you have something new.
I contend that all other religions are different to my philosophy since they claim that their God(s) is finite.
I claim that if God is, then nought else can be. All is God and God's diversity of being.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I contend that all other religions are different to my philosophy since they claim that their God(s) is finite.
I claim that if God is, then nought else can be. All is God and God's diversity of being.
Did you say "if" god is?

I don't think the Great Pumpkin is going to show up this year, either.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Did you say "if" god is?

I don't think the Great Pumpkin is going to show up this year, either.
Let me be clear about something of immense philosophical importance: If God exists, then nothing else does.

If you believe in a God and yourself also, then you are deluded. For no other can exist outside of an omnipresent God. No other can have power distinct from an omnipotent God. And no other can have its own will, which opposes the will of the all-deciding God.

If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever.
If you don't believe in God, then enjoy the rest of your time here.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Let me be clear about something of immense philosophical importance: If God exists, then nothing else does.

If you believe in a God and yourself also, then you are deluded. For no other can exist outside of an omnipresent God. No other can have power distinct from an omnipotent God. And no other can have its own will, which opposes the will of the all-deciding God.

If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever.
If you don't believe in God, then enjoy the rest of your time here.

Let me be clear about something of immense philosophical importance: If God exists, then nothing else does.


Proof please?

But using this belief of which you present as fact. I know I and you and the tree outside and my wife and kids and greyhounds etc exist so God does not.



If you believe in a God and yourself also, then you are deluded.

Childish, if people do not believe or think as you do, or tell them to they are “deluded “..


For no other can exist outside of an omnipresent God.

I know to ask for facts and or some form of proof of this is futile.

No other can have power distinct from an omnipotent God.

I know to ask for facts and or some form of proof of this is futile.

And no other can have its own will, which opposes the will of the all-deciding God.

I know to ask for facts and or some form of proof of this is futile.

What is strange and of course yet another example of your self-contradicting beliefs is that you have said
i.e. Originally posted by lifegazer

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

This disproves your statement in this post as if it is Gods will that we “skeptics and sandal wearers” believe in “him” or what you his messenger tells to believe that it seems we “skeptics and sandal wearers” have a will that opposes the will of the all-deciding God

I must ask again do you really know what you believe?

If we do not have a will why do we not all believe in this God and if it “his” will we do not that what are you doing trying to override his will?


I must ask again do you really know what you believe?

If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever.

Self contradicting statement, you believe there is no us just God so there is nothing to fear losing.. THINK about what you say.


If you don't believe in God, then enjoy the rest of your time here.

Best statement you have made.

Be well

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
Proof please?

The proof is self-evident. If an omnipresent God exists, then what can exist apart from God? If an omnipotent God exists, then what else can have any power?

But using this belief of which you present as fact. I know I and you and the tree outside and my wife and kids and greyhounds etc exist so God does not.

The tree, your wife, your kids and the greyhound, all exist within your awareness. This is the fact of the matter. Philosophy deals with facts.

What is strange and of course yet another example of your self-contradicting beliefs is that you have said
i.e."The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks."

This disproves your statement in this post as if it is Gods will that we “skeptics and sandal wearers” believe in “him” or what you his messenger tells to believe that it seems we “skeptics and sandal wearers” have a will that

I must ask again do you really know what you believe?

Please - the dork post was banter. Though in your case... ahem.

If we do not have a will why do we not all believe in this God and if it “his” will we do not that what are you doing trying to override his will?

I cannot oppose the omnipotence of God since no power exists external to omnipotence. I am what I was meant to be.

[lifegazer]

"If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever."

Pahansiri: Self contradicting statement, you believe there is no us just God so there is nothing to fear losing.. THINK about what you say.

An eternity awaits. Do you think God shall sit alone in silence?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[BAn eternity awaits. Do you think God shall sit alone in silence? [/B]

Why not , who am I to impose my thought upon the creator.

Personaly I think of god as the big band that started to play in the Big Hall at the start of time.

My other favorite one is Thoth leading the Egyptian gods against the Ancient and Old Ones to wrest the universe from the hands of chaos.

If god exists,
if they are anythings like you imagine,
why not what I imagine?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let me be clear about something of immense philosophical importance: If God exists, then nothing else does.
What a perfect application of the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Step 1. Get a baseball bat.

Step 2. Strike yourself repeatedly in the head until you no longer doubt the existance of the baseball bat.

And there you go: once you have proved that the baseball bat exists, you have proved that God does not.

...

Well, that was easy.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahzi

What a perfect application of the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat Test (TM).

Step 1. Get a baseball bat.

Step 2. Strike yourself repeatedly in the head until you no longer doubt the existance of the baseball bat.

And there you go: once you have proved that the baseball bat exists, you have proved that God does not.

...

Well, that was easy.
No dice, Yahzi.
The sensation of a bat, like the pain it dishes out, is an internal experience. You cannot show that the baseball bat exists externally to you. In fact, you know nothing about anything other than through internal sensation, associated with internal reason and internal emotion.
That a baseball bat can hurt me is not in doubt. Whether that bat exists externally to me, is.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No dice, Yahzi.
The sensation of a bat, like the pain it dishes out, is an internal experience. You cannot show that the baseball bat exists externally to you. In fact, you know nothing about anything other than through internal sensation, associated with internal reason and internal emotion.
That a baseball bat can hurt me is not in doubt. Whether that bat exists externally to me, is. Which brings us right back to where I came in...you are infering the existence of mental entities from your physical sensations. (Of course, I assume physical reality to say that. You will argue that I infer physical reality from a perceived mental reality. The difference is, I recognise my assumptions, and you do not.)

I think this is where I get off...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No dice, Yahzi.
The sensation of a bat, like the pain it dishes out, is an internal experience. You cannot show that the baseball bat exists externally to you. In fact, you know nothing about anything other than through internal sensation, associated with internal reason and internal emotion.
That a baseball bat can hurt me is not in doubt. Whether that bat exists externally to me, is.

But when I get hit with a bat by a giant green chicken in my dreams, then I can be like a caroon and regenerate.

When you get hurt by the bats there seems to be a coorelate in the physical realm, if it is an illusion it seems to be a very persistant one.

Why can the bat hurt you if it is an illusion, it seems that you are allowing for the existance of the external world, our illusions seem to have strong coorelates?

If the existance of the bat is questionable, will you let Yahzi hit you? The pain is not an illusion, it is caused by damage to your nerves.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Which brings us right back to where I came in...you are infering the existence of mental entities from your physical sensations. (Of course, I assume physical reality to say that. You will argue that I infer physical reality from a perceived mental reality. The difference is, I recognise my assumptions, and you do not.)

I think this is where I get off...

Maybe you can wave at us while the bus/airplane circles around.

[Pahansiri]

Originally poster by lifegaiser
The proof is self-evident.


Really? Then why do you refuse to offer up this proof? Surly a messenger of God can offer to us the proof of what he demands if fact.


If an omnipresent God exists,

You have offered no proof, supporting data or logical conclusion to support your “fact” that there is a God. So while you now say “ if” rather then demanding there is as you were your “if’ there is a god is no more relevant then if there is 12’ invisible giants who think they are great basketball players and really are.

First you would need to prove there is 12’ invisible giants, 2nd that you have the ability to know what they think and 3rd that they have the ability to be great basketball players.

You avoid most questions posed to you and dance around others but you are only doing the best you can with what you have.

then what can exist apart from God?

Nothing but if the great pumpkin or big foot was omnipresent the same would be the case.

I will again restate that I respect what you believe and your rights and all peoples. There are things we agree with. But you come demanding yours is the great truth and all here who do not agree with you or challenge you are dumb, lost blind this is childish and make you to look foolish and your beliefs meaningless. When you demand truth the burden is yours to prove this “truth” you refuse and resort as a child does to name calling and demanding it is truth simply because you say it is.

Relax and actually talk, share and debate with no need to be right, don’t consider being wrong or challenged as a personal failure or attack of which you need attack.

I think you are a very intelligent kid and acting far less mature then you truly are.



If an omnipotent God exists, then what else can have any power?

What ever it creates to have “power”. I think one way you another, that is power, to think is power, I am an ex-elite athlete in several sports I squat over 700 lbs, that is a physical power and so on. The very fact you are here and angry because people will not believe you demonstrate power as if your God controlled all and none had power then all would think like you and be robots.

Your very statements contradict you, if this statement is true

If an omnipotent God exists, then what else can have any power?

then these are wrong.

If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever.
If you don't believe in God, then enjoy the rest of your time here.

Or your now famous statement that you are now saying “ oh I was just kidding” lol you are too easy.

Originally posted by lifegazer

The God of Gods wants skeptics and sandal wearers alike to wake up their God-given reason and to stop thinking like dorks.

These are both direst contradictions to this statement If an omnipotent God exists, then what else can have any power?

The 2nd of course is wrong for a number of reasons all which I have pointed out and you have ignored including such a being can NOT WANT for anything.


The tree, your wife, your kids and the greyhound, all exist within your awareness. This is the fact of the matter. Philosophy deals with facts.

Yes and our awareness is the reality of this life as Einstein and Buddha far before said Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Funny you say Philosophy deals with facts.yet you offer no facts of your Philosophy. Buddhism is a belief of looking at what is. Remember Philosophy is not one set thing there is no one set Philosophy as much as you demand yours is. Philosophy in and of itself does not mean truth or there would be just one, Philosophy means Viewpoint, idea, Thinking, Values, Beliefs. What you say is what you believe unless you can prove it and you have not.


Please - the dork post was banter.

That is a very nice dance, be careful as you back peddle not to trip again.

Though in your case... ahem.

Your immaturity is showing again.


I cannot oppose the omnipotence of God

Nor prove “him”.

Funny you can not oppose the omnipotence of God
But we all seem to be.


since no power exists external to omnipotence.

Proof?

I am what I was meant to be.

And the proof you either don’t know what you believe or your belief is just wrong is you are here screaming like a child trying to change us when as to your belief we are just following what your God is making us do and believe.

Make up your mind.

[uruk]

Buddhist believe in NO God no creator and Hindus believe in millions of them.

Didn't the Buddhists have that dreamer and dream thingy?

[uruk]

I contend that all other religions are different to my philosophy since they claim that their God(s) is finite. I claim that if God is, then nought else can be. All is God and God's diversity of being.

Again, nothing new here. Just about every religion has claimed this in one form or another.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever."

Pahansiri: Self contradicting statement, you believe there is no us just God so there is nothing to fear losing.. THINK about what you say.

An eternity awaits. Do you think God shall sit alone in silence?

An eternity awaits. Do you think God shall sit alone in silence?

1- I do not believe there is a God so question is irrelevant until you prove there is a God.
2- I do not believe there is a God so do not believe “he” has a butt to sit on. Question is irrelevant until you prove there is a God.
3- If you believe as say Christians do or even if you believe that as the facts tend to show that life here is say billions of years old and do not believe there is life anywhere else. Then it would seem this god spent untold billions and billions and billions and uncountable number of years sitting alone before he created as you believe us.
4- If a all powerful all knowing being sits alone it is his choice and under his control as would be creating beings that did not believe in “him” for him to want or become in anyway upset that beings he had full control over do not believe in “him” is pure silliness.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by uruk


Didn't the Buddhists have that dreamer and dream thingy?

:confused: "dreamer and dream thingy?"?

As in this a dream of a god? No. I am Buddhist and Buddhism does not as I said believe in any creator.

I hope you are well my new friend.

[uruk]

And no other can have its own will, which opposes the will of the all-deciding God.

You've just disproved your philosophy. Because if this is true
then noone here can disagree with your philosophy. For if we don't have a will then how can we have a choice against the will of god.


If you believe in God, then lose yourselves quickly, before you are lost forever.If you don't believe in God, then enjoy the rest of your time here.

Even you conceed to this point here. How can we choose not to believe if non-belief is contrary to the will of god and since you say that there is no other will than god's then we don't have a will to make a choice. So the fact that we don't believe in your garbage is proof that it is just that, Garbage.

Like I said, Just like any other religion. Self-contradictory.

[uruk]

An eternity awaits. Do you think God shall sit alone in silence?
But if god is the only thing that exists, then that is exactly what he is doing.

[uruk]

"dreamer and dream thingy?"As in this a dream of a god? No. I am Buddhist and Buddhism does not as I said believe in any creator.

I hope you are well my new friend.?

I appologise. I was wrong about the dream thingy. And as far as religion goes, it seems to be the most sane. Though I don't buy into the reincarnation and karman thing.

Although Buddhism technically don't believe in a "god".
Some forms of buddhism still have a pantheon of bodhisattvas, yaksas, yaksini, mara, etc. Mostly local divinities but sort of like the analog of catholic saints and worshiped (venerated) just the same.

My mistake to lump it in. But Lifegazer does tend to mishmash his
beliefs.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by uruk


I appologise. I was wrong about the dream thingy. And as far as religion goes, it seems to be the most sane. Though I don't buy into the reincarnation and karman thing.

Although Buddhism technically don't believe in a "god".
Some forms of buddhism still have a pantheon of bodhisattvas, yaksas, yaksini, mara, etc. Mostly local divinities but sort of like the analog of catholic saints and worshiped (venerated) just the same.

My mistake to lump it in. But Lifegazer does tend to mishmash his
beliefs.

Hello

I appologise. I was wrong about the dream thingy.


My friend there is no need to apologize for anything.


And as far as religion goes, it seems to be the most sane.

It is best not to too hardly judge things that you may not really understand and or dismiss beliefs in anyone’s beliefs blindly as while for instance I do not believe there is a creator nor care but the reality is there may be. The one that believes he/she knows all there is to know is really the fool not always the one that believes what has yet to be proven. At one time only crazy people thought the world was round.

It is best to always respect the rights and beliefs of others as long as they do not REALLY harm you or others. That is real harm not what you may feel is harm.

Though I don't buy into the reincarnation and karman thing.

That is cool I demand nothing as “THE ONLY TRUTH” nor demand any believe what I do or demand anything.

But may I ask is it you don’t by into what you believe “reincarnation and karma”is or what someone told you? For instance Buddhism does not believe in a self and by such while we believe in rebirth we do not really believe in reincarnation. When I, Mark Bertrand/Pahansiri dies Mark Bertrand/Pahansiri is dead and gone and will not be back unless exactly the same causes and conditions arise that arose in this life for “me”.

As to Buddhist karma. You do not believe in actions? Cause and effect? If you take a hammer right now and hit yourself in the head will it not hurt? Cause, swinging the hammer- effect, pain.

Although Buddhism technically don't believe in a "god".
Some forms of buddhism still have a pantheon of bodhisattvas, yaksas, yaksini, mara, etc.

I am a bit rushed now but such things less Mara which is not believed as a demon but used to illustrate evil acts, desires etc, hate etc but bodhisattvas etc are beings with no special powers other then have moved closer to awakening and are reborn over and over seeking to help and teach etc though loving kindness.

Not gods or any such and never the same “person” they were in their last birth.

Again there is more to it and I do not ask you to believe it nor demand it as fact any more they you can demand it is not.

Mostly local divinities but sort of like the analog of catholic saints and worshiped (venerated) just the same.

Respected and used as tool of teaching as to Buddhism, as to some Buddhist yes some grasp to these as like saints and greatly respect but not worship anymore they then would you and all life.

[uruk]

I have to admit that my knowledge of buddhism is rusty.
It is limited to a few books concerning history and culture I read awhile back.

As to Buddhist karma. You do not believe in actions? Cause and effect? If you take a hammer right now and hit yourself in the head will it not hurt? Cause, swinging the hammer- effect, pain.

Cause and effect as in consequences for actions,yes. But not that there is something which tallies up your actions in life and determins your station in the next incarnation. But I suppose this comes down to "can you live with yourself" in light of your actions.

It is best to always respect the rights and beliefs of others as long as they do not REALLY harm you or others. That is real harm not what you may feel is harm.

In practice, I try to follow "the live and let live" code. But in the context of debate, I like the part of devil's advocate. If you present your argument or belief, and ask me for my opinion. I will give it to you with as much honesty as I can muster.


Respected and used as tool of teaching as to Buddhism, as to some Buddhist yes some grasp to these as like saints and greatly respect but not worship anymore they then would you and all life.

Technically, in the catholic church, saints are used as examples on how to live your life as a christian and are not to be worshiped (although they can be used as advocates).
But there are some flavors of catholicism, especially in the hispanic and carribbean cultures which do worship them.

Lately I've been rather exasperated with Lifegazer as he has, in the past, evaded and refused to answer certain questions posed to him. And when you expose his contradictory reasoning, he insults you. So I thought "turn about" was fair play.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by uruk
I have to admit that my knowledge of buddhism is rusty.
It is limited to a few books concerning history and culture I read awhile back.



Cause and effect as in consequences for actions,yes. But not that there is something which tallies up your actions in life and determins your station in the next incarnation. But I suppose this comes down to "can you live with yourself" in light of your actions.



In practice, I try to follow "the live and let live" code. But in the context of debate, I like the part of devil's advocate. If you present your argument or belief, and ask me for my opinion. I will give it to you with as much honesty as I can muster.




Technically, in the catholic church, saints are used as examples on how to live your life as a christian and are not to be worshiped (although they can be used as advocates).
But there are some flavors of catholicism, especially in the hispanic and carribbean cultures which do worship them.

Lately I've been rather exasperated with Lifegazer as he has, in the past, evaded and refused to answer certain questions posed to him. And when you expose his contradictory reasoning, he insults you. So I thought "turn about" was fair play.

I have to admit that my knowledge of buddhism is rusty.
It is limited to a few books concerning history and culture I read awhile back.

That is cool. I just believe it is best to have a pretty total knowledge of something before we make statements of what something “is”. I am sure you as I have had had something said about us that was maybe very loosely based on some small fact and we stated as a total fact when it reality it was not true.

An example if you say someone is not really someone you would date, you did not say she was ugly or bad etc but the truth becomes something else and soon her brother is going to pound you because someone told him he heard you say she was an ugly slut.

I believe many times beliefs or all things do not get a real close look before we dismiss them.


Cause and effect as in consequences for actions,yes. But not that there is something which tallies up your actions in life and determins your station in the next incarnation.


We do not believe something or someone tallies anything. It is simply cause and effect rolling on, an example you steal something and no one finds out for many years, years pass then the conditions arise that the truth comes to light and a greater effect arises then just the feelings of guilt you have had.

We believe actions are like seeds not all bring about fruit and all only do when the causes and conditions are correct. But we do know if you plane a hot pepper plant it will never produce sweet apples.

As to karma flowing from one birth to the next I of course can not prove to you it is the case and would not seek to try or care. We believe the true nature of mind is like matter and energy, never created nor destroyed just raising and falling changing form until we can see clearly the true nature of mind and end the cycle of rebirth and death and karma ends there. Just what I believe.


But I suppose this comes down to "can you live with yourself" in light of your actions.

True and the effect of an action can be as subtle as just that, just the fear of being caught or regret always there.


In practice, I try to follow "the live and let live" code. But in the context of debate, I like the part of devil's advocate. If you present your argument or belief, and ask me for my opinion. I will give it to you with as much honesty as I can muster.

I agree and am very happy to have this conversation with you as you seem not driven by ego or a need to be right and truly just seek a respectful sharing conversation/debate. This is often hard to find and I mean my friend lifegaiser no disrespect but I believe the way he conducts himself is clear as is the reasons .

Back toy our point. If someone makes a statement of belief I respect that and believe if they clearly just say it is a statement of belief it needs to be respected. When one like lifegaiser makes statements of FACT and demands others are lost and wrong etc then yes it is part of debate to be aggressive. But for me, aggressive with respect and logic along with facts and or logical conclusion NEVER engaging in personal attacks etc. Such things are used by one “losing” or not able to support their statements.


My point really was to you that it is best not ( I believe) to say “ this is that” with a good working knowledge. That is all.

Technically, in the catholic church, saints are used as examples on how to live your life as a christian and are not to be worshiped (although they can be used as advocates).

Mostly true ( I am also an ex- catholic) a bit more there saints are seen as attaining some powers etc but this really splitting hairs and I agree there are many Buddhist more so in countries/ cultures where the culture or part of it became inter woven in Buddhism and that is OK and should be respected as it should for all beliefs. The difference is you will very seldom , VERY find a Buddhist demanding TRUTH and declaring others lost and bound for “hell”.

But there are some flavors of catholicism, especially in the hispanic and carribbean cultures which do worship them.

Yes and I respect that. A persons beliefs can never harm or have any power over me unless I allow it. Then it is my fault.

Lately I've been rather exasperated with Lifegazer as he has, in the past, evaded and refused to answer certain questions posed to him.

OH YES….LOL But he is doing the best he can where he is. He will not answer what he can not and will resort to name calling etc and anger. This is not said to disrespect him I believe we have all been where he is at one time. I believe he is a very intelligent kid looking to be right at something I believe self image is a driving force, we all have been there.



And when you expose his contradictory reasoning, he insults you. So I thought "turn about" was fair play.


Gandhi said “ an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind”. I believe to do what you feel is wrong just because it was done to you is silly and below who you are.

The Buddha said Hatred is not diminished by hatred at any time. Hatred is diminished by love this is the eternal Law.....( Buddha)

I believe to do what you feel is wrong just because it was done to you is silly and below who you are.

I believe it is always best to conduct is always respect, logic and facts. Facts will win there will be no winner in a name calling match.

Just what I believe. Be well my new friend.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by uruk


Didn't the Buddhists have that dreamer and dream thingy?

I think that it was Chuan Tzu, who gave the Koan about dreaming about an ice cream come dreaming about being human.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by jj
I've put Lifegrazer on ignore, myself. He reads like a fellow who's shown up at iidb, with similar "logic". By the end of page one, he/she began to emerge akin to our ol' buddy Franko. And then a short time later wraith showed up. Yawn.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
By the end of page one, he/she began to emerge akin to our ol' buddy Franko. And then a short time later wraith showed up. Yawn.
I don't give a rat's who you think I am. Clear off whoever you are.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I don't give a rat's who you think I am. Clear off whoever you are. TLOP controls you controls keyboard.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that UpC has been abducted by his newly wedded wife and that they are enjoying matrimonial bliss. Quite so! Just got back and, given a couple of days to catch up with my life, I'll be joining back in.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
TLOP controls you controls keyboard.

Therefore KEYBOARD is more conscious than YOU!

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
By the end of page one, he/she began to emerge akin to our ol' buddy Franko. And then a short time later wraith showed up. Yawn.

Lifegazer isn't Franko. I can guarantee you that, since I have had extensive interactions with both of them. Both are theists, but that is where the comparison ends. Franko has a much sharper grasp of logic, and is much more aware of the way the world works. Lifegazer is still in short trousers IMO......

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Lifegrazer is a good kid and intelligent I believe his ego gets in his way of logic and truth.

Correct. IN SPADES. The problem being that Lifegazers own philosophy includes the idea that mere knowledges of the Unity of All Things is enough to disolve the ego. The fact that it doesn't seem to have worked for him doesn't seem to be a problem from his POV, although it makes him look a bit silly from the POV a mystic.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Clear off whoever you are.


What would Jesus have said?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


What would Jesus have said?
Do not feed pearls to swine?

[lifegazer]

I'm sure you guys would like nothing better than to know the nitty details of who I am. But it doesn't matter. The philosophy counts and that is it. Kinda ironic really that a guy with a big ego, supposedly, doesn't have the slightest desire to be known or to gain fame. And my philosophy is free, also.
Geoff, there is a distinction to be made between realisation and consequent action. I know I'm not perfect, which is why, apart from my philosophy, I am now making other efforts to change my being. Giving up vices, etc.. I.e., I am making efforts to change my self in relation to the philosophy I have come to realise.
One last point: the value of my philosophy is not dependent upon my being.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Do not feed pearls to swine?

So why are you here trying to force-feed somebody-elses pearls (pearls which you only have half a grasp on yourself) to a bunch of swine then?

Have you got any idea how arrogant and egotistical the title of this thread is?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know I'm not perfect, which is why, apart from my philosophy, I am now making other efforts to change my being. Giving up vices, etc.. I.e., I am making efforts to change my self in relation to the philosophy I have come to realise.
[/B]

One of your vices is coming here and being pretentious. Can you imagine a pretentious Jesus? Not a comfortable idea, is it? :(

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
So why are you here trying to force-feed somebody-elses pearls to a bunch of swine then?

Some people are open to a little discussion.

Have you got any idea how arrogant and egotistical the title of this thread is?
Getting attention with a noticeable heading is part of the battle to gain readers. And I want as many readers as I can muster.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Some people are open to a little discussion.


You didn't come here to "discuss". You came here to lecture, and about things you only half understand. Your attitude is as one who knows and wishes to "explain" to others these "deep truths" you think you understand. Arrogant, Lifegazer. BIG ego. :(


Getting attention with a noticeable heading is part of the battle to gain readers. And I want as many readers as I can muster. [/B]

So they can all think "What a t*ss*r?" and be turned off the philosophy you are garbling?

Yeah - you certainly want to "gain attention", but then so does my cat, and most three-year olds. :rolleyes:

There is no "battle to gain readers" here. Your battle is getting any of them to take you seriously, and behaving like a pretentious t*ss*r isn't going to work.

Ever heard the phrase "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him"?

Do you know what it means, Lifegazer? :(

It means people who go around saying "Behold, your God." should be either ignored, or buried. Or do you also think you're one step ahead of the Buddha? :rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ever heard the phrase "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him"?

Do you know what it means, Lifegazer? :(

It means people who go around saying "Behold, your God." should be either ignored, or buried. Or do you also think you're one step ahead of the Buddha?
I think my philosophy is more-correct than the Buddhas, yes.
But then how could I present a philosophy which differs from Buddhism without thinking that the Buddha was incorrect about a few things?
Do you have anything to say of any philosophical value, or do you just want to talk about me?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I think my philosophy is more-correct than the Buddhas, yes.


Quite a claim, coming from someone who emphasises the need to dissolve the ego, but has failed to dissolve his own. Buddhas philosophy was aimed at actually achieving what you have conspicuously failed to achieve, rather than turning into a pretentious person who talks a lot but doesn't achieve anything. Most of the stuff you warble on about was considered irrelevant by the Buddha. He was much more interested in results. He was interested in helping people to change themselves, rather than just preaching to others about changing the world. He understood that thinking big thoughts and talking about big ideas just re-inforces the ego. You haven't quite figured that one yet.


But then how could I present a philosophy which differs from Buddhism without thinking that the Buddha was incorrect about a few things?


And what do you think the Buddha was incorrect about, Lifegazer?


Do you have anything to say of any philosophical value, or do you just want to talk about me?


Others can judge the value of my insights. Your judgement isn't of much interest to me.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Quite a claim, coming from someone who emphasises the need to dissolve the ego, but has failed to dissolve his own.

The Buddha never dissolved his ego. If he had have done, then his philosophy would have mentioned 'God'.
Further proof that the Buddha hadn't dissolved his ego was a belief in individual reincarnation. How can there be such a thing as reincarnation if we are not our egos? How can we discuss our own progress when only God or source, if you like, exists?

Buddhas philosophy was aimed at actually achieving what you have conspicuously failed to achieve,

I am actively walking the road as we speak. And I do not believe that the Buddha achieved anything significant for humanity as a whole.

#rather than turning into a pretentious person who talks a lot but doesn't achieve anything.

You don't know me or what I am doing with my life. So this judgement stuff is nonsense. You mistake confidence in a philosophy about God as a mirror of arrogance in myself. But I can promise you that I am only confident in relation to this philosophy.

Most of the stuff you warble on about was considered irrelevant by the Buddha.

How can 'God' be irrelevant?

He was much more interested in results.

What, building another icon-based religion with hierarchies of masters, proclaiming oneself special over others?

He was interested in helping people to change themselves, rather than just preaching to others about changing the world.

He was right to do that. But there is no purpose to Buddhism if it does not promise eventual unity for mankind.

He understood that thinking big thoughts and talking about big ideas just re-inforces the ego. You haven't quite figured that one yet.

So Buddha's thoughts weren't very big? The Buddha abdicated from the throne of reason?
The fundamental basis of a good religion - and definitely a good philosophy - is that it should make sense in relation to existence.

Others can judge the value of my insights. Your judgement isn't of much interest to me.
It's clear that my judgement (my philosophy) isn't of much interest to you since you never actually discuss anything I say - yet still have the balls to say that it's tripe!! LOLOL.
And your own "insights" all seem to be about me. If I had the sort of ego you accuse me of having, I'd be in attention-heaven. But I'm much more interested in discussing concepts of philosophical value. So please wise up or ship out.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Some people are open to a little discussion.


It would seem that you are not one of them, Mr. Offensive. Did you go to the Rush Limaugh School of Diplomacy?

Getting attention with a noticeable heading is part of the battle to gain readers. And I want as many readers as I can muster.

If that is so then you could actualy engage in conversation, it would appear that the tactic you use to garner attention also makes most people dismiss you. So why not try a peaceble conversation minus the wierd attitude.

I don't think that really want people to read what you write , you just want them to agree with you.

Maybe your like Ann Coulter?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The Buddha never dissolved his ego. If he had have done, then his philosophy would have mentioned 'God'.
Further proof that the Buddha hadn't dissolved his ego was a belief in individual reincarnation. How can there be such a thing as reincarnation if we are not our egos? How can we discuss our own progress when only God or source, if you like, exists?

Oh my, big words from someone who hasn't read the teachings of the buddha.
- The buddha taught a path to freedom, he did not need to mention god, as it is a practise. Followers may form thier own beliefs.
-the buddha did not teach reincarnation, he taught kamma/karma which is ver idifferent. Acts are followed by acts.
-tyhe buddha never taught progress, only liberation


I am actively walking the road as we speak. And I do not believe that the Buddha achieved anything significant for humanity as a whole.

Thats a great opinion, when you found a philosphy that lasts as long as his then you can brag. Have you actualy ever read the teachings of the buddha?

What, building another icon-based religion with hierarchies of masters, proclaiming oneself special over others?
I hope this isn't a reference to the buddha?

He was right to do that. But there is no purpose to Buddhism if it does not promise eventual unity for mankind.

The buddha said his practise would lead to personal liberation, what individuals do is up to them.

So Buddha's thoughts weren't very big? The Buddha abdicated from the throne of reason?



If you read the buddha then you could decide for yourself what he taught.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The Buddha never dissolved his ego. If he had have done, then his philosophy would have mentioned 'God'.
Further proof that the Buddha hadn't dissolved his ego was a belief in individual reincarnation. How can there be such a thing as reincarnation if we are not our egos? How can we discuss our own progress when only God or source, if you like, exists?

I am actively walking the road as we speak. And I do not believe that the Buddha achieved anything significant for humanity as a whole.

You don't know me or what I am doing with my life. So this judgement stuff is nonsense. You mistake confidence in a philosophy about God as a mirror of arrogance in myself. But I can promise you that I am only confident in relation to this philosophy.

How can 'God' be irrelevant?

What, building another icon-based religion with hierarchies of masters, proclaiming oneself special over others?

He was right to do that. But there is no purpose to Buddhism if it does not promise eventual unity for mankind.

So Buddha's thoughts weren't very big? The Buddha abdicated from the throne of reason?
The fundamental basis of a good religion - and definitely a good philosophy - is that it should make sense in relation to existence.

It's clear that my judgement (my philosophy) isn't of much interest to you since you never actually discuss anything I say - yet still have the balls to say that it's tripe!! LOLOL.
And your own "insights" all seem to be about me. If I had the sort of ego you accuse me of having, I'd be in attention-heaven. But I'm much more interested in discussing concepts of philosophical value. So please wise up or ship out.

The Buddha never dissolved his ego. If he had have done, then his philosophy would have mentioned 'God'.

Pure silliness and totally illogical. The Buddha was wrong because he did not believe as you do, in fact you said no religion thinks like you do so every living being ever was lost and blind but you. Silliness.

The Buddha became free from ego you are consumed by yours.


Prove God then we can talk.

Further proof that the Buddha hadn't dissolved his ego was a belief in individual reincarnation.

No, he did not you have a great deal to learn about Buddhism. There is no self, the Buddha was very clear on this.

How can there be such a thing as reincarnation if we are not our egos?

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, there is no self.


How can we discuss our own progress when only God or source, if you like, exists?

And yet you offer no proof of this? You being the only being to ever know the truth can not prove this truth he holds???


I am actively walking the road as we speak. And I do not believe that the Buddha achieved anything significant for humanity as a whole.

I respect you believe that and your right to believe what you do, but it is clear your beliefs so far have been wrong. This belief also to the Buddha is one of ego not of logic or knowledge as it is clear you know little of neither Buddhism nor other beliefs.

[/quote]You don't know me or what I am doing with my life. So this judgement stuff is nonsense. [/quote]


Yet you judge everyone here? May we assume that when God gave you this special knowledge that ONLY you hold that he also gave you personal information on all living beings?

My young friend, grow up, that sounds harsh and disrespectful and I am sorry but it is the truth. You are sounding more childish with every post.

You mistake confidence in a philosophy about God as a mirror of arrogance in myself.


1- Prove God
2- “mirror of arrogance in myself” you said no other religion believes what you do and only you are right. “mirror of arrogance in myself”???????


But I can promise you that I am only confident in relation to this philosophy.

Yet no facts?
Sadly I believe you have no confidence in yourself at all, the base of ego. A kid that is picked on not good at sports or with girls or the other things school kids think are “important”.


You are an intelligent kid, rather then just make up a belief and not budge from it learn all you can by sharing and debating ideas.

How can 'God' be irrelevant?

What, building another icon-based religion with hierarchies of masters, proclaiming oneself special over others?

He was right to do that. But there is no purpose to Buddhism if it does not promise eventual unity for mankind.

You have no understanding of Buddhism at all and keep making silly incorrect statements, this one may be the most inaccurate. But you said it so it becomes truth, right?

So Buddha's thoughts weren't very big? The Buddha abdicated from the throne of reason?
The fundamental basis of a good religion - and definitely a good philosophy - is that it should make sense in relation to existence.

You have no clue what Buddhism teaches.

It's clear that my judgement (my philosophy) isn't of much interest to you since you never actually discuss anything I say - yet still have the balls to say that it's tripe!! LOLOL.

This is perhaps the best example of hypocrisy, the pot calling the kettle black. The truth is everyone here has been discussing and you have not, you demand truth then become angry when pushed to prove it. Such is childhood and it’s actions.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's clear that my judgement (my philosophy) isn't of much interest to you since you never actually discuss anything I say - yet still have the balls to say that it's tripe!! LOLOL.
And your own "insights" all seem to be about me. If I had the sort of ego you accuse me of having, I'd be in attention-heaven. But I'm much more interested in discussing concepts of philosophical value. So please wise up or ship out.

Russ falls off his chair

You actually think your philosophy holds more water than buddism, and that anyone who disagrees should wise up or ship out? Take it down a notch lifegazer, relax, breath in, breath out. Now, is that better?

BTW, really looking forward to your special relativity thread. Please note that you started it in another thread caus I can't wait.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
There is no self, the Buddha was very clear on this.

Then who sees what we see, who says what we say, and who seeks what we seek? The Self, which we all are. That's who.
If the Buddha reduces the self to nothing, then why bother about anything? What personal freedom can a no-self have?

Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, there is no self.

The rebirth of who?

The rest of your post is garbage, choosing to discuss me instead of the issues and concepts on the table.

The Buddha did not dissolve his ego, because if he had, he would have beome source. He would have spoken as source.

Buddhism falls short of the truth.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then who sees what we see, who says what we say, and who seeks what we seek? The Self, which we all are. That's who.
If the Buddha reduces the self to nothing, then why bother about anything? What personal freedom can a no-self have?

The rebirth of who?

The rest of your post is garbage, choosing to discuss me instead of the issues and concepts on the table.

The Buddha did not dissolve his ego, because if he had, he would have beome source. He would have spoken as source.

Buddhism falls short of the truth.

My friend instead of avoiding answering questions and points go back and start to give the same respect to me and others we have shown you by answering all points and questions.


Stop saying things are garbage when it is just you can not answer these very logical questions and points. Start providing facts for what you say. Grow up and if you really seek debate then debate and that is the mature interaction between people not you posting your base beliefs as fact then refusing to provide the facts.

Do that and I will answer your questions below so you can start to learn about of what you speak. Rather then just saying what something is or says or believes when it is clear you have little or no knowledge of the subject of which you speak.

Prove that I am right and you are an intelligent kid that can act maturely as I believe you can..
:rub:

[uruk]

If the Buddha reduces the self to nothing, then why bother about anything? What personal freedom can a no-self have?

But that's exactly what your saying about your philosophy.
There is no mind but gods. Your philosophy is also reducing the self(our "selfs") to nonself. What a hypocrite!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk
But that's exactly what your saying about your philosophy.
There is no mind but gods. Your philosophy is also reducing the self(our "selfs") to nonself. What a hypocrite!
Don't condemn what you do not understand. My philosophy does not reduce the self to nothing, but to God.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then who sees what we see, who says what we say, and who seeks what we seek? The Self, which we all are. That's who.



I don't think you have read the buddha's teaching, he was very rational but came to a different conclusion. He surmised that there is a body, there are thought, there are feelings, there are sensations and there are habits. But each one of these is transitory and changing. There is no place for the self to hang it's hat.

If the Buddha reduces the self to nothing, then why bother about anything? What personal freedom can a no-self have?

Because there still is a body, there are still thoughts, there are still feelings, there are still sensations and there are still habits.

The rebirth of who?

More a rebirth of what, suffering acts leads to other acts of suffering, there is no rebirth of the self. Bur acts of suffering perpetuate.


The Buddha did not dissolve his ego, because if he had, he would have beome source. He would have spoken as source.

Well that depends on how you define ego, there are many paths and definitions.
He said that he had discovered a way to lead people from suffering, I am not sure where the ego would fit in. I think that it woould fit into illusions of habit.
Buddhism falls short of the truth.

Ah, well I doubt that Gautama would have disagreed with that at all. But he did say that it was up to each person to study his teaching and decide it's value. Study then decide. Or not, the buddha would let you be free to choose your own path.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Don't condemn what you do not understand. My philosophy does not reduce the self to nothing, but to God.

Ahem, Mr Pot here is Mr. Kettle, Mr. Kettle here is Mr. Pot.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Don't condemn what you do not understand. My philosophy does not reduce the self to nothing, but to God.

Really:confused:
As I am others have pointed out you say nothing exist but God of course you here say other things exist also but you say many things and have yet like proof been able articulate exactly what you believe.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Study then decide. Or not, the buddha would let you be free to choose your own path.

well said my friend David.

Here are the last words of the Buddha.
Buddha's Last words

Parinirvana Sutra

O monks! Do not grieve! Even if I were to live in the world for as long as a thousand eons, our coming together would have to end.

You should know that all things in the world are impermanent; coming together inevitably means parting. Do not be troubled, for this is the nature of life. Diligently practicing right effort, you must seek liberation immediately. Within the light of wisdom, destroy the darkness of ignorance.

Nothing is secure. Everything in this life is precarious.

Always wholeheartedly seek the way of liberation. All things in the world, whether moving or non-moving, are characterized by disappearance and instability.

Stop now! Do not speak! Time is passing. I am about to cross over. Work hard to gain your own salvation." This is my final teaching.

[uruk]

Don't condemn what you do not understand. My philosophy does not reduce the self to nothing, but to God.

If you reduce the self (our experiances and sense of indiviuality)
back to god then that "self" no longer exists. "does not exist" is one interpretation of "nothing".

Well, If you don't want think about what we have to say, then at least think about what it is that you are saying.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk


If you reduce the self (our experiances and sense of indiviuality)
back to god then that "self" no longer exists. "does not exist" is one interpretation of "nothing".

Well, If you don't want think about what we have to say, then at least think about what it is that you are saying.
If you reduce the self back to God, then you are left with Godself.

[uruk]

If you reduce the self back to God, then you are left with Godself.

Yes, but "that which defines you" your sense of identity or individuality or the "self" is no longer there. it is now part of the "godself" and no longer individual. That identity or individuality is lost to the greater self and therefore does not exists as it did in it's initial state (i.e. before it got reduced)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by uruk


Yes, but "that which defines you" your sense of identity or individuality or the "self" is no longer there. it is now part of the "godself" and no longer individual. That identity or individuality is lost to the greater self and therefore does not exists as it did in it's initial state (i.e. before it got reduced)
I'm not arguing with that. But the loss of the ego does not equate to nothingness of being, but to God-being. That's my point.

[jimlintott]

Well i have read over pretty much the entire thread again. It seems that both lifegazer and myself are concerned with the definition of god. While I have no definitions to offer lifegazer has defined god over and over as omnipresent and omnipotent. He is everything and nothing. I think therefore he is.

Unfortunately such a broad all encompassing definition is clearly unfalsifiable. This means that poor lifegazer is self deluded.

I'm sorry lifegazer but you, like all the believers before you, has again failed to move god from a concept to reality.

I am still absolutely sure there are no such things.

[uruk]

I'm not arguing with that. But the loss of the ego does not equate to nothingness of being, but to God-being. That's my point.

But the self has become non-self. who you are has ceased to be.
that is the same as nothingness from your stand point at least. But anyway, as you stated before, Nothing really exists but the god-being and everything we are and experiance is really going on inside this god-being.

How is this fudamentaly different from some of the ideas of hinduism.

[c4ts]

Funny, you'd think a Religion & Philosophy board would be fitting for a theologian like lg, but apparently it isn't. Theology is bunk I say! Anyone care to refute me?

[Pahansiri]

There are many people who believe or say that “ God is all” or “ the sum total of all or what is, is god” I respect their belief but find no need to attach a unknown to a known. What is, is and I see simply no reason to declare it is “ god” or pineapple.

For us as Buddhist we find the God idea first fully irrelevant and 2nd seemingly illogical.

The goal of all beings is happiness, easing or ending suffering. If there is a God or 10 or a billion will not end suffering, hatred, ignorance, fear etc.

If I seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others for any other reason then compassion, loving kindness and respect of myself and others it is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of fear of a God is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of respect of a God but not myself or others is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others to please a God is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself seeking some reward from a God is not moral.

For these reasons for me it the God idea is irrelevant.

The Buddha told the story of the poisoned-arrow that go-s something like this.


A man approached the Buddha and wanted to have all his philosophical questions answered before he would practice.

In response, the Buddha said, "It is as if a man had been wounded by a poisoned arrow and when attended to by a physician were to say, 'I will not allow you to remove this arrow until I have learned the caste, the age, the occupation, the birthplace, and the motivation of the person who wounded me.' That man would die before having learned all this. In exactly the same way, anyone who should say, 'I will not follow the teaching of the Buddha until the Buddha has explained all the multiform truths of the world' - that person would die before the Buddha had explained all this."
http://www.csis.hku.hk/~bruce/water75.html


Fear is a self imposed illusion that only blinds from truth.

The Buddha also said

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Fear is a self imposed illusion that only blinds from truth.






Our friend lifegazer yells as to my Buddhist belief Buddhism does not explain existence/the universe. This is of course because he makes statements about things he has not researched and believes because he says them they are then true.


The fact is the Buddha in the Aganna Sutta, explained the forming of the universe, this world, life here etc very well and in what we call today evolution etc. He did this 2600 years ago.


The Aganna Sutta, basically says this from the following site. http://www.buddhanet.net/qanda.htm



It is interesting that the Buddha’s explanation of the origin of the universe corresponds very closely to the scientific view. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha described the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes.

please know I am NOT seeking to convince anyone of anything, tell anyone what they believe is wrong or anyone is “lost” or convert anyone, Buddhism does not seek to convert. It is often said Buddhism does not seek more Buddhist just more Buddhas


be well.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
There are many people who believe or say that “ God is all” or “ the sum total of all or what is, is god” I respect their belief but find no need to attach a unknown to a known. What is, is and I see simply no reason to declare it is “ god” or pineapple.

You have a knack of making nonsense look intelligent. Please explain to this forum - whether God exists or not - how God as a concept can be any less than all-powerful, all-present, or all-knowing. Are you a liberal, perhaps, who leaves the door open for Elvis Presley types to proclaim themselves as God?
"Behold, your God... finite... embraced by the rest of existence... partly present... but tougher than you so watch your step!".
I think it's about time we had a reason-check in this forum. I'm tiring of the low standards and may even leave before I am barred. LOL

For us as Buddhist we find the God idea first fully irrelevant and 2nd seemingly illogical.

Please explain Mister Buddha's reasons for this as I am keen to dispose of Buddhism as a credible religion asap.

The goal of all beings is happiness, easing or ending suffering. If there is a God or 10 or a billion will not end suffering, hatred, ignorance, fear etc.

What is happiness?

If I seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others for any other reason then compassion, loving kindness and respect of myself and others it is not moral.

What is good and what is right is that humanity as a whole shall live in unity, without borders and wars, without poverty and class, and without a God whose 'children' bow to icons and have a hierarchy of order, proclaiming a man to be more special than all others.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of fear of a God is not moral.

Doing good and right is wrought out of love for all - aka God - not fear.

please know I am NOT seeking to convince anyone of anything, tell anyone what they believe is wrong or anyone is “lost” or convert anyone, Buddhism does not seek to convert. It is often said Buddhism does not seek more Buddhist just more Buddhas

The Buddha claimed to have "dissolved" his ego. So who was he speaking as when he proclaimed the truths he espoused? Was he speaking as the no-self? In that case, shouldn't he have said nothing?
The Buddha failed to realise that the loss of the ego leaves the essential Self devoid of the earthly sensed-self. And if the Buddha had achieved this state of being, he would have spoken more in-line with Jesus-of-Nazereth than... the Buddha.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You have a knack of making nonsense look intelligent. Please explain to this forum - whether God exists or not - how God as a concept can be any less than all-powerful, all-present, or all-knowing. Are you a liberal, perhaps, who leaves the door open for Elvis Presley types to proclaim themselves as God?
"Behold, your God... finite... embraced by the rest of existence... partly present... but tougher than you so watch your step!".

there's been a little something brewing for the the past few millinium (at least). Its called polythiesm. Maybe you've heard of it. And yes, its believes do say that their favorite god is "partly present... but tougher than you so watch your step!"


I think it's about time we had a reason-check in this forum. I'm tiring of the low standards and may even leave before I am barred. LOL


low standards? Its time your filled in the gaps in your jumps of reason lifegazer. Buddism may make leaps of reason and logic, but the leaps of reason and logic buddism makes are no different than the leaps your philosophy makes.


Please explain Mister Buddha's reasons for this as I am keen to dispose of Buddhism as a credible religion asap.


Please explain *your* reasons for thinking that anything not understood by you is proof of a god as I am keen to dispose you are a credible poster asap [Case of pot/kettle]

Having a god is not a requirement for a religion btw.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
there's been a little something brewing for the the past few millinium (at least). Its called polythiesm. Maybe you've heard of it. And yes, its believes do say that their favorite god is "partly present... but tougher than you so watch your step!"

The people who define God as a finite entity are the same dumbos that define nothing as something to suit their own philosphical ends. Such people do not use reason to make their judgements, but bias. That's how we end up with polytheism, or wide expanses of nothing.

low standards? Its time your filled in the gaps in your jumps of reason lifegazer. Buddism may make leaps of reason and logic, but the leaps of reason and logic buddism makes are no different than the leaps your philosophy makes.

They must be different by default, otherwise we'd share the same philosophy.

Having a god is not a requirement for a religion btw.
Of course not. Case in point: materialism.

[lifegazer]

The Buddha claimed to have "dissolved" his ego. So who was he speaking as when he proclaimed the truths he espoused? Was he speaking as the no-self? In that case, shouldn't he have said nothing?
The Buddha failed to realise that the loss of the ego leaves the essential Self devoid of the earthly sensed-self. And if the Buddha had achieved this state of being, he would have spoken more in-line with Jesus-of-Nazereth than... the Buddha.

[Pahansiri]

Such a silly boy.

I believe to at least myself and I must assume most others it is abundantly clear your immaturity and self image problems, your desire to be at last “right” at something have greatly crippled your ability to think logically and formulate a cohesive belief and discussion regarding it. What also seems clear now from your opening statement is your reading and comprehension skills are also dangerously crippled by these same ego problems.

I wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Pahansiri
There are many people who believe or say that “ God is all” or “ the sum total of all or what is, is god” .I respect their belief but find no need to attach a unknown to a known. What is, is and I see simply no reason to declare it is “ god” or pineapple.


You respond:
You have a knack of making nonsense look intelligent.

Is this your way of asking me to help you support and explain your belief? Lol


Please explain to this forum - whether God exists or not –

?? perhaps it is best if you have your parents or older brother or sister read the post to you and explain what is written.

People who read an comprehend what I have written understand I do not believe in a God or God so why would I seek to prove one exist?

YOU have demanded one does and all of us and everyone but you on earth is wrong so as I and others have pointed out the burden of proof is YOURS.


I know I have said this now what may be reaching countless times, lifegazer PROVE GOD. Prove anything you say, please.



how God as a concept can be any less than all-powerful, all-present, or all-knowing.

It is just that a concept so can not be proven to be one way or the other because as a concept it is fully unproven or supported by facts. I had asked you before using your logic prove Big foot can not play basketball?


Are you a liberal, perhaps, who leaves the door open for Elvis Presley types to proclaim themselves as God?

Repeat after me and do so 1000 times and perhaps it will start to sink in, Pahansiri does NOT believe in a God.

Your questions are irrelevant and childish.

Elvis Presley appears from all available facts to be dead and God from appears from all available seems not to exist.

Unless you can prove with facts it does?


"Behold, your God... finite... embraced by the rest of existence... partly present... but tougher than you so watch your step!".


Repeat after me and do so 2000 times and perhaps it will start to sink in, Pahansiri does NOT believe in a God.

Your questions are irrelevant and childish. I do feel sadness that the other children must pick on you very badly.


I think it's about time we had a reason-check in this forum. I'm tiring of the low standards and may even leave before I am barred. LOL

You are too cute. I can just see you sitting there stamping your feet and yelling to your mother “ Mommy they will not listen to me I hate them”…LOL

The low standards are yours by refusing to conduct a mature conversation and support anything you say is fact, with any facts.




quote:
For us as Buddhist we find the God idea first fully irrelevant and 2nd seemingly illogical.


Please explain Mister Buddha's reasons for this as I am keen to dispose of Buddhism as a credible religion asap.

Lol You are a silly kid..

I DID explain this, have your parents read it to you.

The goal of all beings is happiness, easing or ending suffering. If there is a God or 10 or a billion will not end suffering, hatred, ignorance, fear etc.

If I seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others for any other reason then compassion, loving kindness and respect of myself and others it is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of fear of a God is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of respect of a God but not myself or others is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others to please a God is not moral.

To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself seeking some reward from a God is not moral.

For these reasons for me it the God idea is irrelevant.

The Buddha told the story of the poisoned-arrow that go-s something like this.


A man approached the Buddha and wanted to have all his philosophical questions answered before he would practice.

In response, the Buddha said, "It is as if a man had been wounded by a poisoned arrow and when attended to by a physician were to say, 'I will not allow you to remove this arrow until I have learned the caste, the age, the occupation, the birthplace, and the motivation of the person who wounded me.' That man would die before having learned all this. In exactly the same way, anyone who should say, 'I will not follow the teaching of the Buddha until the Buddha has explained all the multiform truths of the world' - that person would die before the Buddha had explained all this."
http://www.csis.hku.hk/~bruce/water75.html


Fear is a self imposed illusion that only blinds from truth.

The Buddha also said

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines".

Dp 188

Fear is a self imposed illusion that only blinds from truth.

OK I again covered why the God idea is irrelevant to me.

As to why the God idea seems illogical is the very fact you keep demanding it is TRUTH /FACT but offer not even one fact or proof of it. I and Buddhism will just suspend judgement as to fact until such evidence is forthcoming.


quote:
The goal of all beings is happiness, easing or ending suffering. If there is a God or 10 or a billion will not end suffering, hatred, ignorance, fear etc.

What is happiness?

My sadness for you is that you may not know what happens is.
Happiness, true happiness is to be free from suffering, pain ,anger, ignorance, fear and hate.


quote:
If I seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to myself or others for any other reason then compassion, loving kindness and respect of myself and others it is not moral.



What is good and what is right is that humanity as a whole shall live in unity, without borders and wars, without poverty and class, and without a God whose 'children' bow to icons and have a hierarchy of order, proclaiming a man to be more special than all

WELL SAID!!!

Yet you rant and rave declaring that ONLY YOU are right and smart and know truth and everyone on earth is wrong. You seek to set yourself out to be that person that is more special.. You have to think before you speak as you are always contradicting yourself.

If you are saying the Buddha sought to be seen as more special then another or any being you have so much to learn. READ a book. The Buddha ended the cast system in India for along time saying that all life is the same, the first belief that said woman and men were the same as equals etc, he said clearly he was only a man and all beings are Buddha.. Knowledge is power my young friend, let go of your anger and fears and be the very intelligent person we know you really are. Hate and anger/fear blinds. Grow up.

The fact is if today there came proof of a God there still would be hunger, hate, war etc. Most people believe in Gods and we see how the world is. The God idea is irrelevant.



I said quote:
To seek to do what is good and right and bring no harm to others or myself out of fear of a God is not moral.

Doing good and right is wrought out of love for all - aka God - not fear.


You can call as I stated in my very first statement the one you did not understand, All God or call it pineapple. What is, is I can prove beings you can not prove God. I care for what I can prove the suffering beings I do not concern myself with God, or Santa or big foot.

As to fear, YOU contradict yourself again you have said God is angry we do not believe as he wants, yet you say he controls all and is all and we have no will so you are all over the board.


quote:
please know I am NOT seeking to convince anyone of anything, tell anyone what they believe is wrong or anyone is “lost” or convert anyone, Buddhism does not seek to convert. It is often said Buddhism does not seek more Buddhist just more Buddhas

The Buddha claimed to have "dissolved" his ego. So who was he speaking as when he proclaimed the truths he espoused? Was he speaking as the no-self?


Do this you demonstrate to me something that is self. Self/ soul etc can be nothing other then just that. It can not contain any part or be influenced or shaped by anything else or it is not in and of its self, self.


Show me one thing that is in and of it’s self, self.




In that case, shouldn't he have said nothing?

Why?? Please read more. Pick up a book.


The Buddha failed to realize that the loss of the ego leaves the essential Self devoid of the earthly sensed-self.

There is no self, unless you can prove something that is and of its self, self. Show me something physical that is not completely comprised of non self elements. Show me that your thoughts, personality etc is not shaped by your parents, friends, events, teachers , friends etc.


Show me “self”.


And if the Buddha had achieved this state of being, he would have spoken more in-line with Jesus-of-Nazereth than... the Buddha.

Why? Because if he said there was a god like you believe then he would be ok? Your low self image is showing.


As always I will say I have great respect for you as I do all beings. I truly believe you are an intelligent kid, a bit lonely and angry. Let go of anger and join us as friends and equals not seeking to be our master.

Have a happy Thanksgiving, have for yourself and all living things loving kindness respect and compassion..

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The people who define God as a finite entity are the same dumbos that define nothing as something to suit their own philosphical ends. Such people do not use reason to make their judgements, but bias. That's how we end up with polytheism, or wide expanses of nothing.


Wow lifegazer, how about for a change, that we have a logical discussion, instead of claiming that anyone who diagrees with you is a "dumbo" without providing any substantiation.

Do you honestly believe that a polythiests definition of a god is any less right than a monothiest's (you) definition of a god?. Explain to me your evidence, experiments, observations, or tests that show that god must be a single entity, rather than many (50 points). Why most a god be all powerfull (10 points)? Check your dictionary. Logically explain why all the other definitions are wrong (5 points).


They must be different by default, otherwise we'd share the same philosophy.


oh, I see, you have different leaps in logic. OK, however, your leaps in logic are of the same degree. I see no more substantiation to "I don't understand, so there must be a supreme intelligence dreaming everything" than "we are all concious, we must have an eternal esscence that is seeking happiness"


Of course not. Case in point: materialism.

No, as in buddhism, shinto (correct me if I'm wrong on this one), many native american religions, and many other eastern religions. (funny that these people are actually atheists)

Anywho, explain how by any part of the definition of "religion" materialism is a religion (10 points).

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer


I think it's about time we had a reason-check in this forum. I'm tiring of the low standards and may even leave before I am barred. LOL

Well you certainly have set the bar lower than it has been in a while, I think you are just a coward who doesn't care to examine the validity of your thought process.

A truely brave person examines thier beliefs on a regular basis.


Please explain Mister Buddha's reasons for this as I am keen to dispose of Buddhism as a credible religion asap.

You cluck like a ****** and bray like a ******, perhaps you should consider a visit to Bremen town.
The buddha says that god is not needed to follow the path he set forth, you are free to chose to believe in god if you wish.

Let me repeat for you Capn' Ahab, FREE TO CHOSE TO BELIEVE!
What is happiness?



I am not sure that that it is not a pahansiri word, but the buddha claimed his method would reduce suffering.


What is good and what is right is that humanity as a whole shall live in unity, without borders and wars, without poverty and class, and without a God whose 'children' bow to icons and have a hierarchy of order, proclaiming a man to be more special than all others.



This just marks you as a small minded cultural bigot, you must be some sort of born again loon.

The bow is a mark of respect, something you never show yourself. Only a religous crack pot would say that it is a sign of worship and idolotry.

When you bow to the figure of the buddha, which is not a requirement, it is a mark of respect not an act of worship.

The buddha never claimed to be special, that is more of your bigotry. Your born again slip is showing LifeGazer.

You are a poseur, afarid to tell the truth or even discover it.



Doing good and right is wrought out of love for all - aka God - not fear.


There are many paths to freedom and compassion, you are like a meglomaniac, in that you feel only your freedom and compassion are right.


The Buddha claimed to have "dissolved" his ego. So who was he speaking as when he proclaimed the truths he espoused? Was he speaking as the no-self? In that case, shouldn't he have said nothing?



This is up to you pond hopper, but your fear will keep you from the truth. C****d.

the buddha claimed that he had realized the illusion of self. He did not claim to have dissolved his ego. You are like Ian in that you put words in other's mouth and then use your concepts to judge them. C****d.

The no self is still a body, still a mind, still feelings , still emotions and still habits.

Your logic is below kindergaredn

Finger, moon.


The Buddha failed to realise that the loss of the ego leaves the essential Self devoid of the earthly sensed-self. And if the Buddha had achieved this state of being, he would have spoken more in-line with Jesus-of-Nazereth than... the Buddha.

The loss of ego , means that you no longer view yourself and your thoughts as the center of the world. This is your error LifeWaster, you are Procrustes writ in the philosphical forum.

You are also ignorant, the message of Jesus and the buddha is almost identical.

You Lifewater are a c****d, you cling to your small minded beliefs because you are a coward.

You are foolish and attack that which you never studied because you are a ****rd.

I say That you are like unto Jedi Knight, and that you are afraid to examine you beliefs because you know that they are based on your fear.

You have less compassion than GWB, and less smarts than most nine year olds.

Continue your chicken dance, foolish one.

You will leave this forum because you are afraid!