Are there bigger HYPOCRITES on this planet then atheists???

There seems to be overwhelming evidence that these people with squinty eyes and funny lettering who are called Buddhists are not really the cuddly teddy bear people you want us to imagine.

LOL...wow. You are incredibly ignorant.

You...and EVERY SINGLE "source" you keep presenting contains the EXACT SAME, BLATANT, AND RIDICULOUS error of indisputable historical fact as it's chief argument.

That is...YOU CANNOT ATTRIBUTE THE ACTIONS OF THE JAPANESE EMPIRE TO THE BUDDHISTS BECAUSE FROM 1868-1945 JAPAN WAS A SHINTO THEOCRACY.

It's like blaming the Hare Krishnas in the United States for invading Iraq...what the hell did they have to do with it OR the right-wing nuttery that got us there? Nothing! The Hare Krishnas are a completely different religious tradition, they are a minority population, and they hold essentially zero power in local, state, and federal government as well as the judiciary....much like the minority Buddhists did in Japan between the years of 1868-1945.

THAT'S WHY THAT TIME PERIOD IN JAPANESE HISTORY HAS BEEN DUBBED "STATE SHINTO".
It's because the government hijacked the traditional and native SHINTO religion in an effort to fuel their nationalism and the war machine and the Buddhists were summarily persecuted with the proverbial "velvet hammer" for their beliefs until the vast majority of them ultimately converted to the SHINTO THEOCRACY.

...Now...why would the Japanese Imperial govt work so hard to get everybody on board w/ practicing the SHINTO religion b]INSTEAD OF buddhism?? EASY!! Because the Buddhist religious establishment flat-out REFUSED to beat the war drums for the Japanese Empire!!!

So...now that we have dispelled this insane concept of "Japanese WWII-era Buddhists" for once and for all...what's left to support the argument of the "violent Buddhists?". Can you find Buddhists that fought sometimes? Sure...they are human beings. The Shaolin monks are some of the most fierce and best trained warriors in the history of the world and would EASILY give a Spartan a run for their money if not outright hand their asses to them.

However, all of this rich tradition in Kung Fu and the martial arts was developed BECAUSE the Shaolin Buddhists were being persecuted for teaching a doctrine of peace instead of pounding the war drums for the Chinese Emperor. Later they would use their skills to defend themselves or travelers during China's many periods of near-anarchy from bands of roving thugs.

The closest the Shaolin ever came to going to "war" was a series of four battles during a single year (1553) when the monks assisted the Ming Dynasty in clearing up an epidemic of non-state sponsored piracy on the coast...once again...fighting brigands and thieves. They fought ferociously to defend their people from rape, pillage, and plunder...and then went right back to the Temple where they have been meditating ever since. That's it. In 1500 years the Shaolin have engaged in a grand total of FOUR full-scale battles during a SINGLE YEAR of their history. The sum total of their existence before and since has been spent in nothing more than perfecting their art to ensure the safe passage of travelers for the purpose of trade. That's a mall cop...not an "soldier".

Now your argument is that the ones that kill are not really Buddhists, cool argument
.www.youtube.com...

No...you're just being ignorant and racist again. There is no "argument" I'm just accurately pointing out that a SHINTO is not a BUDDHIST of any kind...real, pretend, imaginary, pious or otherwise. Just like a Muslim isn't a Christian, a Jew isn't a Lakota Sioux Medicine Man, a Hindu isn't a Zoroastrian, and an apple isn't an orange. There's no theological relationship between the two at all.

and if indeed you are saying Buddhists are violent then I apologise, I thought you were saying Buddhists are non violent.

...and stop thinking in absolutes already...would you? I never said that "no Buddhist anywhere on planet earth has ever been violent even once". I correctly stated that out of ALL OF THE MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS...Buddhism is the ONLY one to more or less consistently refuse to the beat the war drums for their governments. Can you find an exception? Probably...I'm sure there is some sh^thole temple somewhere in the Himalaya's that time has largely forgotten that didn't follow the teaching of Buddha once...but you cannot find any Pope Urban the II's, Torquemada's, Saladin's, or Netanyahu's in the Buddhist tradition who successfully co-opted the Buddhist religious establishment into playing a role in government-sanctioned warfare, genocide, imperialism, etc.

By and large...the Buddhists are BY FAR the "cleanest" (even if not "absolutely perfect") out of all the World Religions. And that, my friend...is a FACT.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by milominderbinder

By definition, a "trinitarian" MUST believe in the Triune God...that's what the word "trinitarian" means. If you spoke to anybody who believes otherwise...then you spoke to a "nontrinitarian".

Thanks for illustrating that you don't understand LITERALLY the first major precept of the judeo-christian tradition.

I love it when people are big "believers" of their religion and yet have not ever read their own religious texts.

Actually, many of the trinitarian "church fathers" were polytheists also.

Trinitarian [ˌtrɪnɪˈtɛərɪən]
n
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a person who believes in the doctrine of the Trinity
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a member of the Holy Trinity See Trinity [3]
adj
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) of or relating to the doctrine of the Trinity or those who uphold it
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) of or relating to the Holy Trinity
Trinitarianism n

Thus...anybody who is a "polytheist" by definition CANNOT be a "trinitarian" and vice-versa. If you ever met someone who professed to be BOTH a "trinitarian" and a "polytheist" then the correct term to describe their beliefs is:

confused [kənˈfjuːzd]
adj
1. feeling or exhibiting an inability to understand; bewildered; perplexed
2. in a disordered state; mixed up; jumbled
3. (Social Welfare) lacking sufficient mental abilities for independent living, esp through old age
confusedly [kənˈfjuːzɪdlɪ -ˈfjuːzd-] adv
confusedness n


What's so hard to understand here? Do you have a dictionary available? Just look up the words you are using. Is English your first language? (And no…I'm NOT being sarcastic. If English is a second or third language for you then that could easily explain why you aren't understanding what the word "trinitarian" means…and there's no shame in it. Most of us Americans only speak one language, so we can't hardly look down on people who have a little trouble with English when they are also fluent in a few other languages as well).

reply to post by milominderbinder


As I said, some of those whom they call "church fathers" had a polytheistic trinity.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000



Indeed, both JW's and Mormons are cults.

I think the word "cult" gets thrown around too easily by trinitarians. I think it should be reserved for groups where people actually get hurt by, like Jim Jones' church and not every group you disagree with on doctrine.

Gotcha....we'll just apply the word "cult" to every religious tradition in the history of mankind. Every one of them has hurt people and forces it's members to believe in ridiculous concepts that cannot be proven.

...and yes, borntowatch...that includes Buddhism. Once again...I'm saying that Buddhism is the "best of what's out there" in terms of actually making an attempt to practice the doctrine of peace that they preach....but let's face it...that's not saying much when the other horses in the race are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam.

It's kind of like bragging that the house you are selling is the "most peaceful" part of Khandahar. It's still a war-torn hellhole any way you cut it.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by milominderbinder

 

As I said, some of those whom they call "church fathers" had a polytheistic trinity.

Huh? That's an oxymoron. WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by milominderbinder

...and stop thinking in absolutes already...would you? I never said that "no Buddhist anywhere on planet earth has ever been violent even once". I correctly stated that out of ALL OF THE MAJOR WORLD RELIGIONS...Buddhism is the ONLY one to more or less consistently refuse to the beat the war drums for their governments. Can you find an exception? Probably...I'm sure there is some sh^thole temple somewhere in the Himalaya's that time has largely forgotten that didn't follow the teaching of Buddha once...but you cannot find any Pope Urban the II's, Torquemada's, Saladin's, or Netanyahu's in the Buddhist tradition who successfully co-opted the Buddhist religious establishment into playing a role in government-sanctioned warfare, genocide, imperialism, etc.

By and large...the Buddhists are BY FAR the "cleanest" (even if not "absolutely perfect") out of all the World Religions. And that, my friend...is a FACT.

Well that wasnt very hard then was it, all that frustration and anger was pointless, it all comes down to you finally agreeing with me.
People are people, and their are evils in all people.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000



Indeed, both JW's and Mormons are cults.

I think the word "cult" gets thrown around too easily by trinitarians. I think it should be reserved for groups where people actually get hurt by, like Jim Jones' church and not every group you disagree with on doctrine.

Well, if you don't believe Jesus is the Almighty incarnate, but rather a lesser god to be worshipped, whereas Yahveh says he will not give his glory to another or his praise, that's polytheism and also blasphemy and is not christianity at all so yes it's a modern "cult".

reply to post by borntowatch


Pretty much all religions are cults vying for followers and mind controlled by the doctrine of their individual "churches". Believe what you want, as long as it's within the confines of church doctrine.

Religion eschews logical thought and encourages people to disregard what they can see by using faith to override it.

Anyone not believing in the way they do things is excommunicated as a heretic or non-believer. All derive money from donations or tithing and people face ostracism of various degrees for not contributing to the church.

So, when someone says that atheists are hypocrites, they may have to worry about their own glass cathedral or temple from where they're throwing their rocks.

Anyone who is truly devoted to their church doesn't worry about non-believers. It's the people with doubt that don't like the atheists, because of the seeds of discontent and doubt sown by rational thinking.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000



Indeed, both JW's and Mormons are cults.

I think the word "cult" gets thrown around too easily by trinitarians. I think it should be reserved for groups where people actually get hurt by, like Jim Jones' church and not every group you disagree with on doctrine.

Well, if you don't believe Jesus is the Almighty incarnate, but rather a lesser god to be worshipped, whereas Yahveh says he will not give his glory to another or his praise, that's polytheism and also blasphemy and is not christianity at all so yes it's a modern "cult".

So, trinitarians are a cult? I guess I can see that with the very bloody past they have.

By the way, giving glory to "Yahveh" is giving glory to another.

reply to post by truejew

By the way, giving glory to "Yahveh" is giving glory to another.

You have still yet to prove that. I did some research on "Ehyeh". Your God is EA/Enki. Sumerians called him EA, and he disobeyed the Most High, that should tell you something about what you are worshipping.

AskDrBrown:Yahweh the true name of Almighty God

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000



Indeed, both JW's and Mormons are cults.

I think the word "cult" gets thrown around too easily by trinitarians. I think it should be reserved for groups where people actually get hurt by, like Jim Jones' church and not every group you disagree with on doctrine.

Gotcha....we'll just apply the word "cult" to every religious tradition in the history of mankind. Every one of them has hurt people and forces it's members to believe in ridiculous concepts that cannot be proven.

...and yes, borntowatch...that includes Buddhism. Once again...I'm saying that Buddhism is the "best of what's out there" in terms of actually making an attempt to practice the doctrine of peace that they preach....but let's face it...that's not saying much when the other horses in the race are Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Islam.

It's kind of like bragging that the house you are selling is the "most peaceful" part of Khandahar. It's still a war-torn hellhole any way you cut it.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, seems you want to deny the filth in your own atheist backyard, they are in the horse race as well, and a long way out in front

While granted many religions cause violence and death, Christianity is one of the few that teach that violence and death are not acceptable.
Atheism and evolution can teach death and has many times.

Buddhism steals human life, we were not created to be slaves to religion like Buddhism teaches.
Buddhism takes away the freedom of action and makes people submit to evil authority

reply to post by borntowatch

Kind of judgmental, aren't you?

Everyone has good reasons for being exactly what they are. I'm sure you are good and bad and would rather not confess to the bad.

Why stir the pot? Ever think you might dredge up something nasty from your own past?

Karma's a bitch.

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Pretty much all religions are cults vying for followers and mind controlled by the doctrine of their individual "churches". Believe what you want, as long as it's within the confines of church doctrine.

Not true, I go to a church that is predominantly Calvinistic in its theology, I am not Calvanistic .Both them and I dont care, the denomination believe in baptising babys, I am not big on it
You think all those people in a church agree on every minor issue? Seriously?
There are many types of churches out in the world, they accommodate many different theologies. The fundamentals are the same.

Originally posted by grahag
Religion eschews logical thought and encourages people to disregard what they can see by using faith to override it.

Like what, those words have no value
Faith that Jesus is real, there is an afterlife, a time of judgement for our actions. What does faith override in the real world, explain your position, its very dubious and vague.

Originally posted by grahag
Anyone not believing in the way they do things is excommunicated as a heretic or non-believer. All derive money from donations or tithing and people face ostracism of various degrees for not contributing to the church.

There are probably 5 standard teachings all Christians must observe to be accepted as Christian. Christians are accepted as Christian by Christ not men in churches. I can start a home church outside of the denominational churches if I like, providing it is based on teachings from the bible, not my own it would be a Christian church.
Catholics teach works ? (tithing) not protestants. The collection plate is anonymous
Your position is just blatantly wrong

Originally posted by grahag
So, when someone says that atheists are hypocrites, they may have to worry about their own glass cathedral or temple from where they're throwing their rocks.

I am not denying I am a hypocrite, never did or ever have, the statement- is a question.
I am asking does an atheist have a right to judge?

Originally posted by grahag
Anyone who is truly devoted to their church doesn't worry about non-believers. It's the people with doubt that don't like the atheists, because of the seeds of discontent and doubt sown by rational thinking.

Well there you go, I must really be an unbeliever at heart and your unquestionable logic has me faltering. Oh wait, I questioned your false logic

reply to post by borntowatch

Are you saying that, as a "believer", you are in some way superior to an atheist and are, therefore, more "worthy" to make moral judgments?

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Kind of judgmental, aren't you?

Yeah I am, that was the point of the post. Christians are being judged by atheists and I wonder what right they have to judge anyone, never mind Christians. What do they base their beliefs on.

Originally posted by rtyfx
Everyone has good reasons for being exactly what they are. I'm sure you are good and bad and would rather not confess to the bad.

People dont have a good reason, watch the news to see how people act these days and say they have a good reason to act like that.
I would rather confess I am bad rather than I am good.

Originally posted by rtyfx
Why stir the pot? Ever think you might dredge up something nasty from your own past?

Why stir the pot? Thats a good question, I guess its to show the hypocrisy of atheists and explain they have no right to any moral high ground. Dredge it up, what makes you think its buried, what do you think I am hiding.

Originally posted by rtyfx
Karma's a bitch.

No, this fallen world is, this fallen life is.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by truejew

 

You have still yet to prove that. I did some research on "Ehyeh". Your God is EA/Enki. Sumerians called him EA, and he disobeyed the Most High, that should tell you something about what you are worshipping.

AskDrBrown:Yahweh the true name of Almighty God

edit on 12-10-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

You are denying that Ehjeh is salvation. Jesus is the only name by which we must be saved. You cannot be saved without His name.

In addition, the name "Jehovah" is false. It means Ehjeh is destruction.

reply to post by borntowatch

You hate.

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Are you saying that, as a "believer", you are in some way superior to an atheist and are, therefore, more "worthy" to make moral judgments?

No, I am asking what rights an atheist has to judge anyone, what do they base their righteousness on.
I am not superior to anyone, never suggested that.
I dont judge atheists actions if they dont affect me, I question their moral foundation.

Why not see it for what it is not what you want to imply

I am asking what rights an atheist has to judge anyone

reply to post by borntowatch

What right do you have to judge atheists?

Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by borntowatch

 

What right do you have to judge atheists?

I have every right to judge atheists, I dont have a right to condemn them.
You going to suggest that Christians are to remain completely non judgemental here? I hope not because that will show a flaw in your logic and comprehension of Christian doctrine.

Please dont pretend you know what you are talking about, it looks silly.
and Its already been discussed only a few pages back.