America's True History of Religious Tolerance

[Missileman]

Is Buddism a "religion"? to most Buddist God is not relevant, many are atheist.


Missle

I'd love to talk to you at lentgh but I don't have the time.
however in one sense you are correct if there is a God he is Real in the scienticfic sense. as in he actually exist like you. Zues is not real, many religions are patently false. However many do have bits that are completly factual.

Please post an example of a completely factual supernatural bit. Steven King sets most of his books in New England and mentions real places and some real events. That isn't evidence vampires, ghosts, demons, etc really exist.

you keep saying science rejects theories and hypothesis that it finds are untrue. well that a lie. at least it'snot a cut and dry as you make it sound. read the history of science. you'll find that MOST of the paradigm shaking discoveries of science were rejected for years by the scientific establishment.
it's a story that plays over and over.

How about some examples from modern science?

I pointed out you you a while back the assumptions of evolution and some of the scientific problems and you never moved your faith in that science one inch. what's up with that?

Firstly, I don't have "faith" in science. I base my beliefs on the evidence that exists. I don't recall the assumptions and problems you are referring to, can you post a link and I'll review or re-review, depending on whether I've actually seen them before, and will address them in that other thread, if I haven't already.

Concerning proof for God's existence I've posted a few items a week or so ago that talked about the scientific "proof" for God, pointing to the reality of a god like the one described in the Bible. a God that created the universe at a point in the past, a God that planed and designed it, and is by scientific and reasonable necessity outside of the creation and you never replied, whats up with that?

I just went back and gave it another look. Here's my problem with calling it "proof" of anything. They found "code" which looks like a "man-made" code in the calculations(man-made) trying to explain string theory(also man-made). It's a bit like saying I found sausage while working on recipes for a sausage pizza.

Are you really looking for evidence for a god? Are you really open to it?
if your really looking for facts i gave you some but it looks like you only show up to do what you say can't be done. DISPROVE God's existence.

Looking for it, no. Open to it, sure. Why isn't anyone arguing that we maybe duplicated a naturally occurring "code" when we wrote a computer program? That possibility is at the very least as plausible as "god" without further evidence.

[Wind Song]

I'd love to answer your question Revelart, but I've been told not to talk about Buddhism.

[SassyLady]

I'd love to answer your question Revelart, but I've been told not to talk about Buddhism.

[Wind Song]

Jim told me he was sick of me being a Buddhist in every thread and he wished I would talk less about Buddhism. I won't discuss Buddhism on this forum.

[fj1200]

They're neither, they just make you uncomfortable.

Not really. You're still chasing rabbits even though because you don't like the answer.

Mundane may have been a better word than trivial.

Extinction was a result of their INABILITY to CHANGE (evolve). New religions and dead religions are not examples of change, it's why I ignored the two "possibilities" in my previous post. Female clergy violates no biblical prohibition that I'm aware of. Changes in the way a church conducts business is more than likely NOT an evolution of the religion itself...I'm more interested in changes to the fundamentals...Christ, God, heaven, hell, resurrection, sin, etc. Have any examples like that?

Martin Luther is another example, like female clergy, of a change in the way a church conducts business.

So you get to ask the question and judge the results? Pretty easy to ignore what doesn't fit eh?

The core issue is whether the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, Norse gods, etc actually existed. You've proven yourself a master contortionist while twisting and bending over backwards to avoid answering specific questions on the core issue.

Along with that is the question of whether the disbelief in the obviously "unreal" (leprechauns, unicorns, a moon made of green cheese) is a matter of faith or rational thought...this question also is being avoided like the plague.

Asked and answered.

[Missileman]

Not really. You're still chasing rabbits even though because you don't like the answer.

I'm sorry...did you actually give one?

So you get to ask the question and judge the results? Pretty easy to ignore what doesn't fit eh?

If you ask someone to name three verbs and they reply, "run, religion, and homosexuality" do you congratulate them on naming three verbs and then accept religion and homosexuality as verbs?

Asked and answered.

No, asked and avoided, over and over and over, along with several other questions.

[Wind Song]

Revelarts asks "Is Buddhism a religion"?

Buddhists debate this very question. It depends on how you look at it. Most people commonly think of religion in a theistic way, as organized around a god. Buddhism is non-theistic. There is no God. The goal isn't heaven, or "salvation", the aim is "enlightenment".

If you look at Tibetan Buddhism, it shares alot of the same "stuff". Thangkas, (holy pictures), statues of meditational deities, (instead of saints), incense, candles, vestments and sacred clothing, chants in a foreign language, a structure to the community practice, (sadhana), prayer beads, (mala) ritual etc.

Some of us think of Buddhism as an orientation to life.

[fj1200]

I'm sorry...

A rabbit? No.

Non-responsive.

Answered.