The Buddha Was Wrong, a Skeptical Buddhist Site

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

Watch your breath, clear your mind and kill the buddha.

Are you sure you're not a Buddhist?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Do you have dyslexia? If you do then I can understand. However if you don't I have three words for you..."Hooked on Phonics"!

Can you say orthographic reform? i am dysphonetic, phonics doesn't werk fer me.
I can spell just fine in Spanish and Italian, why? Because they have phonetic spelling.

Quote:

I know many Atheists who follow much of what Jesus taught. Are these Atheists christians now? They must be according to your logic!

Uh, huh. I don't recall define Xian by that defintion, but by all means show that you can overgeneralize.

Quote:

Because being a geologist or a seller of ice-cream doesn't cause contradictions in belief when being a Buddhist. Though one could argue that one is doing harm by selling ice cream since it's not exactly healthy.

Nor does anything and buddhism. there are traditions of buddhism that are dogmatic, but not very many.

How does being a buddhist cause contradictions with Xianity?

Quote:

Irrelevant.

I know methodists who follow the eight fold path?

Quote:

I'm not the Buddhist. I can't identify all of the teachings. But it's clear at this point that neither can you.

So, lets see, i discussed neutraly what comprises the different things called the teachings of the buddha. I personaly , for various reasons, believe that the Pali canon is about as close as we can get.(Although it could be all fiction.) But because I don't act like a canon thumping buddhist version of a fundamrental Xian, you say I don't know what i have studied. Perhaps you don't know squat about history.

maybe you are just a fool, i hope to find out otherwise.

As stated there are no direct letters from the buddha (alleged historical figure) to his followers, not were there video cameras. I have stated the possible sources im a general way.

So what if your question?

You are the fool for talking of absolute truth. Of which there is none. we human can only approximate and predict the behavior of the universe. we can not know it directly. No duh.

Quote:

Then can they be said to be Christians? By definition?

Um, you can be a Xian and follow the eight fold path.


Those "folooowers" of Jesus, eh?[/quote]

Just continue to point out that you have no ability to think criticaly or make a substantial argument, Doesn't bother me.

Act the fool, impress the kids at school.

[onemind]

Quote:

Are you sure you're not a Buddhist?

No, i was trying to sum up how simple buddhist teachings could be to avoid the masses and masses of bs buddhist spout out.

If i were a buddhist i wouldnt be wasting time with frivolous arguments on the internet and be meditating my way to the end of existence.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

If i were a buddhist i wouldnt be wasting time with frivolous arguments on the internet and be meditating my way to the end of existence.

I guess I'm one of those Buddhists who rather enjoy existance and love wasting my time, then. You see, time is all I have

[onemind]

Quote:

I guess I'm one of those Buddhists who rather enjoy existance and love wasting my time, then. You see, time is all I have

The buddha said that a person is twice the fool if they know the dhamma and dont practice it than a mere fool who doesnt know dhamma.

Now i can understand people clinging to labels but if you are going to preach it and insist on being labeled a buddhist atleast friggin practice it.

Chapter 2 of the dhammapada - heedfulness

Heedfulness is the way to the Deathless;
Heedlessness is the way to death.
The heedful do not die;
The heedless are like unto the dead.


T I T L E (2) :

Realzing this distinction,
The wise rejoice in heedfulness,
Which is the way of the Noble.

T I T L E (3) :

These wise, constantly meditative,
Ever earnestly persevering,
Attain the bond-free, supreme Nibbana.

T I T L E (4) :

Of him who is energetic, mindeful,
Pure in deed, considerate, self -restrained,
Who lives the Dhamma and who is heedful,
Reputation steadily increases.


T I T L E (5) :

By diligence, vigilance,
Restraint and self-mastery,
Let the wise make for himself an island
That no flood can overwhelm.


T I T L E (6) :

The ignorant, foolish folk
Induge in heedlessness,
But the wise preserve heedfulness
As their greatest treasure.





T I T L E (7) :

Devote not yourselves to negligence;
Have no intimacy with sensuous delights.
The vigilant, meditative person
Attains sublime bliss.





T I T L E (8) :

When banishing carelessness by carefulness,
The sorrowless, wise one ascends the terrace of wisdom
And surveys the ignorant, sorrowing folk
As one standing on a mountain the groundlings.


T I T L E (9) :

Heedful among the heedless,
Wide-awake among those asleep,
The wise man advances
As a swift horse leaving a weak nag behind.



T I T L E (10) :

By vigilance it was that
Indra attained the lordship of the gods.
Earnestness is ever praised,
Carelessness is ever despised.


T I T L E (11) :

The bhikkhu who delights in earnesstness
And discerns dangers in negligence,
Advances, consuming all fetters,
Like fire burning fuel, both small and great.


T I T L E (12) :

The bhikkhu who delights in earnestness,
And discerns dangers in negligence,
Is not lisble to fall away;
He is certainly in the presence of Nibbana.




Ever heard of venerable empty scripture in the pig pen? Have you even read the pali canon? Down with buddhism.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

If I don't think for myself then who think for me?

So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

iI that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possesion of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from seperate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstartes what?

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

Quote:

BAA?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaningful and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. Ishall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

Quote:

I'm small minded and bigoted because I say that a word is defined a specific way? Hmm...

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganised in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconcieved notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

Quote:

Or maybe they're rhetorical questions aimed at helping you understand your contradictions.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especialy when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

Quote:

I can follow simple sentences. I just can't follow YOUR sentences. You seem to have a problem with the English language.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convinience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.

Quote:

Right back at ya, with a big

[onemind]

did somebody say down with buddhism?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

Incorrect. "Dancing David"'s post was full of nonsensical gibberish and contradictions and was nearly impossible to decipher. Notice how "Taffer" has failed to give a 2 paragraph summary of David's post. I doubt he ever will.

Did YOU understand David's post? Could YOU provide a 2 paragraph summary explaining the post in question? I doubt it.

this argument lacks substance.

Let us see, i wrote about the history of the 'buddha's teachings' to which you replied most foolishly So?

If you really are more than a troll pretending you want to be a sceptic, you could go back and replace your childish 'So?s' with questions about what you don't understand in each sentence.

But because I feel you are a total charlatan I doubt that you will do so, I think you are capable but that would show that you really can't make a substantial argument to get out of a wet paper bag.

What is it that you don't understand? Show that you can really think for yourself and point out what you don't understand. Which of the sentences is incoherent?

Where did i contradict myself Dustin? Let me learn from my mistakes.

Or is it that the facts don't agree with you? Hmm?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

I believe Dancing David is a dyslectic. This shouldn't count against him.

Those actualy are typing errors, they are not spelling errors, those I need to watch out for.
I can not spell because of the goofy archaic nature of the english language. It doesn't help because I have dysphonia and have to memorise all the words. i usualy mispell Thier and Friend.

thanks for the support!

You are much more patient than I.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

The buddha said that a person is twice the fool if they know the dhamma and dont practice it than a mere fool who doesnt know dhamma.

Now i can understand people clinging to labels but if you are going to preach it and insist on being labeled a buddhist atleast friggin practice it.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a fool, and couldn't care less what the Buddha would think of me.

So in your interpretation of Buddhism, the only Buddhists you would accept are the ones meditating themselves mindless in a temple, practicing the Buddha dhamma to extremity?

There is no room for us simple souls who find the Four Noble Truths helpful in everyday life?

- Snipped quotes from the Dhammapada -

What can I say, I'm not a bhikku. If I ever choose to become one, I'll take those words to heart.

Originally Posted by onemind

Ever heard of venerable empty scripture in the pig pen? Have you even read the pali canon? Down with buddhism.

It's hard to say through written text, but do I sense some hostility? I haven't read all of the Pali canon, no. It's a rather large library of texts, and not all of them have been translated into my language.

By the way, I don't know if I said it, but I rather liked your site.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

Watch your breath, clear your mind and kill the buddha.

Down with religion including buddhism..

Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.

i was hanging around on E-sangha, but i got depressed by it.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.

i was hanging around on E-sangha, but i got depressed by it.

Have you checked out The Sasana yet?

Quote:

The Sasana is intended to be a place where those of us who have accepted Buddhism as a way of seeing the world can discuss and practice it without what one of our respondents has called the “dross of 2500 years.” Through the centuries, Buddhism has become an amalgamation of folk beliefs as well as traditional wisdom. The central principles (The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path) taught by its founder, however, are as true and valid today as they ever were. We are hoping to practice Buddhism without the baggage.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by onemind

did somebody say down with buddhism?

Does a dog have a buddha nature?

gosh I hope not!

As frequently discussed here, any clinging impedes the path to freedom of action.

So down with buddhism, up the eightfold path!

[onemind]

Quote:

By the way, I don't know if I said it, but I rather liked your site.

So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?

Quote:

Sounds good to me! Did you read the threads I linked to? They give a good idea of what sceptical buddhists have to say.

Not yet, they are on my reading list and will come in very handy.

Why waste time arguing semantics and protecting your ego? Let go

Damn, i'm more buddhist than buddhists.

[onemind]

Quote:

Have you checked out The Sasana yet?

I got banned from there on my first post because i accidentally said agnostic buddhism makes no sense.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by onemind

So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?
.

this is a true scotsman fallacy. Sam harris also makes it in order to set up his strawman. What is a true Buddhist? A true Christian? These are not absolute values.

[onemind]

Quote:

What is a true Buddhist? A true Christian? These are not absolute values.

I'm the queen of england.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

So your a buddhist that likes my site and doesnt practice buddhism or read much of the pali canon. Why call yourself a buddhist? Just a fashion statement?

I liked your site because it made a serious attempt at criticizing Buddhism, something other anti-Buddhist sites do not. In my mind, nothing is beyond criticism. Your Dalai Lama article made me literally laugh out loud.

Who said I didn't practice the dhamma? Just because I haven't gone to a monastery to become a bhikku and long to meditate myself into non-existance? I can't be a Buddhist because, in general, I rather like existance?

I have to have read the entire Pali canon to be a Buddhist? That must mean that there are very few Buddhists in the world.

Why call myself a Buddhist? Well, that's a good question. I find the label helpful when trying to find like-minded people to discuss the dhamma (I also rather enjoy the labels atheist and sceptic, for the same reason - to find like-minded people to discuss atheism and scepticism). Other than that, the label is useless. It doesn't even help with picking up girls.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

I got banned from there on my first post because i accidentally said agnostic buddhism makes no sense.

That's daft!

I don't see how it can't make sense, though. Even though you said, several post back that you didn't care to discuss Buddhism further, could you elaborate on this? I'm actually quite interested to know.

[onemind]

Quote:

I can't be a Buddhist because, in general, I rather like existance?

Its like being a gay homophobe. The first noble truth is that life is unsatisfactory but you like existence so you havent even grasped the basics. The cycle of rebirth is not seen as a good thing by buddhists and the whole idea of being buddhist is to follow the eightfold path out of the cycle.

Quote:

Why call myself a Buddhist? Well, that's a good question. I find the label helpful when trying to find like-minded people to discuss the dhamma (I also rather enjoy the labels atheist and sceptic, for the same reason - to find like-minded people to discuss atheism and scepticism). Other than that, the label is useless. It doesn't even help with picking up girls.

Fair enough..

[onemind]

Quote:

I don't see how it can't make sense, though. Even though you said, several post back that you didn't care to discuss Buddhism further, could you elaborate on this? I'm actually quite interested to know.

There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by onemind

I'm the queen of england.

you're conflating indefinite article generic descriptors with an definite article individual descriptor. Why would you choose to do that?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

whenever we use terms like "god," "moral," "ethic," "quite," "heap," "evil" etc etc. we can not rely upon any generic, absolute value. This comes up time and time and time again in your posting. How can you still not understand this? The world does not revolve around you. You are not an absolute arbiter of what is and what isn't. Most people grow out of this egocentric concept around the age of 3. I wonder when you will.

You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

Originally Posted by andyandy

dancingdavid provided you with a perfectly adequate summary. You are an absolute waste of time dustin - you come across as an ignorant adolescent struggling to justify his own delusions of grandeur. It's quite sad.

I refuted his summary just like I refuted (what I understood of) his initial post.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

Its like being a gay homophobe.

What, you mean like Ted Haggard?

Originally Posted by onemind

The first noble truth is that life is unsatisfactory but you like existence so you havent even grasped the basics. The cycle of rebirth is not seen as a good thing by buddhists and the whole idea of being buddhist is to follow the eightfold path out of the cycle.

The first noble truth says that there is suffering, but it doesn't say that that is all there is. Sure, there i suffering in my life, but I've learned to cope with it. The Four Noble Truths has been helpful in that.

I'm still not ready to take that big step to embrace the dhamma as a bhikku. Maybe I cling to much to the life I have, and the things in it? I told you I was a fool. But does that make me a non-Buddhist?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

http://www.zcoc.org/chstzen.htm

Actually, there's doesn't have to be conflict between being a Christian and a Buddhist. You can easily acknowledge the Four Noble Truths yet still believe Jesus is your saviour.

Yet there's a big more to being a Christian than thinking Jesus is your savior and a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

I believe Dancing David is a dyslectic. This shouldn't count against him.

That's why I asked.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by onemind

Interesting discussion but i skimmed most of it because my forum has over 400 topics in the past 4 days with the same buddhist definition mess. All buddhist debates are the same, semantics, historical misreferences, poorly defined intersectarian contradictions. Its so tedious and pointless.

Oh yea. I just saw and you're being flooded! I wonder where all those "Buddhists" came from?

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by onemind

There is an article on my website called "Agnostic Buddhism" on the "Articles" menu.

Ah, I did read that. Agnosticism (usually, at least) refers to knowledge about gods, so in this sense you can absolutely have agnostic Buddhism.

But I take it you rather mean if Buddhism is stripped of everything supernatural?

Well, the Four Noble Truths would remain, at least. And far from all the suttas contain anything supernatural, the Kalama Sutta for one.

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

....a bit more to being a Buddhist than following simply the 4 noble truths.

Well, it seems both onemind and Dustin wants to strip away my label as Buddhist.

Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You're making no sense. "Generic absolute value"? We can define "God" pretty easily.

God-the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe.

been on dictionary.com again?

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by andyandy

You need dustin, arbiter of all that is and is not to say that it is so. For once he has spake, it is true and all men in their hearts shall know it.

I'll hold my breath while waiting for his ruling, then

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hello all ! I've seemed to have missed out here! Let's see...

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments. I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him . Let me attempt your challenge...

(Note, proper wording not used to make it easier to understand, and because I'm cool like that)

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Ta da ! What do ya think?

Oh, and Ryokan, so you are Theravada? Could you briefly detail your views on Rebirth and Karma?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

So? as you sated repeatedly and most foolishly?

iI that an argument, does that demonstrate what? that you can think for yourself?
Or when asked to confirm that Xians fought over the issue of jesus and the possesion of a purse, you ask to be spoon fed. Or when someone asks how you would determine what might be the look of an original source from seperate sources two thousand years later and you ask to be spoon fed, that demonstartes what?

I'm afraid I don't understand a single thing you've just said. But I don't believe you ever answered my question.

That you can't think for yourself? that you are lazy? that you have no ability to frame a coherent argument other than one of doubt?

[poor attempt at humor]

I am King Dustin! I say that you must use words the way that i say they must be used. Otherwise I shall smite thee with the Sword of Unmeaningful and I shall defend myself with the Shield of Circular Logic. Ishall not create my own coherent arguments nor shall I defend my statements with evidence, nor shall I respond to direct questions.

I give unto you the word of my followers and it is BAA, you must be sheep and you must conform to all that I say. I need not explain myself , nor shall I defend my arguments. Thou shalt obey King Dustin because I am King and I have told you BAA.
[/poor attempt at humor]

Some words have more than one meaning dude, language is a fluid set of self referencing symbols. You need to ponder more deeply upon the nature of words and social interaction.
Xians and Muslims are dogmatic, not all 'religions' are. Some are rather disorganised in fact.

You are small minded because you insist that that people conform to your preconcieved notions. I am not sure why you are bigot. maybe you are, maybe you aren't.

When you can answer a direct question then I will believe you.

especialy when you are so clueless as to respond So? to a statement of fact.

What is the eightfold path?

If I state a historical fact of history it will contradict itself.

Show where I contradicted myself, show me my errors and I shall learn.

Point out the flaws that i may learn, show me where it is incoherent. Or is it your false expectation that people will fall into a neat little box at your convinience? I stated what the different views are on the teachings of the buddha, get over it.


Right back at ya, with a big

I'm done responding to you until you either learn English or get a spell checker and spend more time thinking about what you're going to type and copy editing it before you post it. I can't spend the time deciphering your gibberish just to encounter your blatant contradictions and inconsistencies.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Those actualy are typing errors, they are not spelling errors, those I need to watch out for.
I can not spell because of the goofy archaic nature of the english language. It doesn't help because I have dysphonia and have to memorise all the words. i usualy mispell Thier and Friend.

thanks for the support!

You are much more patient than I.

English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by andyandy

been on dictionary.com again?

"god" is an infinite set comprising of any subjective interpretations of the term - such are the inherent contradictions within such a framework to talk in generic terms of "god" is essentially meaningless. Even within your narrowly chosen Abrahamic monothestic framework there is sufficient disagreement with just about every term you provide to render your definition a subjective one.

You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Well, then, I ask both of you. What is the requirement for being a Buddhist?

I'm a member of the Norwegian Buddhist Federation, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, consider myself a Theravada Buddhist and acknowledge the Four Noble Truths and the Three Jewels. What more do I need?

You follow the 4 noble truths and the 3 Jewels? A few questions...

1. Why not the eight-fold path? You must follow the eight-fold path to actually follow the 4 noble truths since the 4th noble truth leads to the eight-fold path.
2. Why not acknowledge Śīla?
3. The 3rd noble truth says that "craving" is the cause of "suffering". Really? Tell me, if I am bitten by a bear in the leg and am suffering, explain how "craving" causes this suffering. My pain receptors are sending signals to my brain telling me that I am injured. I will feel pain whether I crave to or not to feel the pain. Explain how "craving" causes this suffering.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Dancing David attempted to answer all of your questions, Dustin. However, you interjected a lot of childish, worthless comments.


I understand him perfectly, so I don't think the issue is with him . Let me attempt your challenge...

Let's see...

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Ahem, a long time ago, in a peninsula far far away... There was (allegedly) a cool dude who we call Buddha. We got our first edition Buddha Bible about five hundred years after his death, which was based upon an oral tradition. This is the most largely recognized text. Over the next centuries a few more sects rose up along with some extra-biblical gospels.

With this in mind, one must realize that it would be very difficult (nigh-impossible) to find the exact, precise, original teachings of the Buddha. Keeping this in mind, we consider all the gospels to be "the teachings of the Buddha." There are a wide variety of beliefs among Buddhists. Generally, one can be considered a "Buddhist" if they follow the four truths and the eightfold path of coolness. In doing so, they are following "the teachings of the Buddha."

Firstly, You claim that it would be impossible to find the original teachings of the Buddha yet "we"(whoever 'we' is) considers all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha? Ok. Who is "We" and why do "we" consider all of the gospels to be the teachings of Buddha when they can't be proven to be?

Secondly, You claim that one can be a "Buddhist" if they follow the 4 truths and 8fold path? What about other teachings including the 10 unwholesome actions, Prajñā and Śīla or possibly including Patimokkha or 10 precepts?

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

English is your first language (I'm assuming) and since that's the case then the so called "Goofy archaic nature" of the english language shouldn't be a problem. When English is all you grew up knowing then you should be used to it. You just need to work on your spelling or get a spell-checker and spend more time overlooking what you type before posting it. I don't usually comment on spelling since my spelling isn't the best but yours is so bad it's nearly incomprehensible.

i can understand it fine. Maybe you're the one with the problem.

[yrreg]

For the dolid gold, pure, unadulterated, free from all kinds of woo, Buddhism, as intended by Gautama himself except that he accommodated his true, real, inerrant, timeless Buddhism to suit the times and climes of his contemporary followers, there is nothing wrong.

Who know the true, real, genuine, authentic Buddhism as intended by Gautama, but for his condescending adaptations to the infantilistic minds of his original followers?

Ask the Buddhists here like Ryokan and Dancing David and others, who are purebred skeptics and at the same time proud to wear the registered trademark of Buddhism, they are the ones who know the eternally valid teachings of Buddha and his precepts, minus his adjustments to his contemporaries who were not possessed of skeptical ideology founded upon critical thinking and empirical evidence.


Yrreg

[andyandy]

Originally Posted by Dustin Kesselberg

You're confusing "God" with "god". The first starting with a capital "G" the latter not. "God" with a capital "G" is the monotheistic God of Abraham. "god" with a lower case "g" is any number of male deities.

within my post i granted you the narrow constraints of the Abrahamic monothestic god which you wish to provide an absolute value for. And yet even this given definition is insufficient for a generic term.