Would your country be better if it was a "Buddhist-free zone"?

And you have as much court-room level of evidence for that as Mohammad had that he "split the moon", and also rode on the back of a Buraq in his "night journey".

 

When they get next door then you'll wish that you hadn't relied only on BOMBS/KILLING, instead of trying to show them a better way.

 

B

remember to love them when they get to your door​

 

No they are not 'utterly immoral'. Your argument presupposes that they accept your interpretation of their faith and that they find it relevant today.

 

There's plenty of evidence out there, but 99% of the people especially the scientist choose to ignore it.

 

you mean like china or maybe north Korea right? freedom from the expression of religion or beliefs contrary to your beliefs is the way right? but its not ok for others to be free from the expression of what you believe.

there is freedom of religion which includes the public expression of those beliefs without fear, and there is freedom from religion, which not to far in the past Russia and china attempted to achieve, by outlawing any public expression of any beliefs other than government sanctioned beliefs, kind of like public schools do today in the US. It lasted a while but wasn't working or it would remain today. the catholic church and others practice without fear in Russia now and china has instituted a state sponsored church (Christian in dogma) that packs them in every service. what china did is no different then what Rome did back in the day.

again you seek freedom from religion, which is anti constitutional (US that is). and most public schools in the US are anti constitutional, public expression on public property paid for by tax payers is protected under the constitution, or at the least is supposed to be, but politicians are afraid and appease the loudest mouth in the crowd. confrontation is something they go jelly on. todays politicians is merely a mouth peace for whatever his or her sponcers perceive the puplic is buying.


thing is you want government sanctioned beliefs only.

 

It would seem that you lack understanding of genuine spirituality, because your rant here is total BS. You also seem to lack an understanding or knowledge of the bible.

No, I don't seek freedom from religion, and if I did, it isn't "anti constitutional" if it were done Constitutionally. But you seem to just have a huge axe to grind when you put words in my mouth and assign words and intentions to me that really aren't there.

Thing is you aren't interested in understanding; your biases and hate get in your way.

 

As a Buddhist, albeit a very poor one, the use of Buddhists and Buddhism to make your point is somewhat offensive. Fortunately, as a Buddhist, I take no offense since no offense was intended.


There is no heaven or hell or even purgatory (although the time between death and rebirth could be considered "purgatory" by some). The "rules" for admission make its existence nonsensical.

If someone like the Buddha, the Dali Lama, or Ghandi cannot gain admittance into "Christian" heaven despite their myriad of good works simply because they do not believe in the "Christian God" then the "Christian God" is not worthy of worship or even belief.

I do not know that rebirth is real. There is some evidence in people that seem to have specific knowledge of times, locations, and events it should be impossible for them to possess but there are other explanations such as hypnosis, scams, and even genetic memory. What I believe is that this life is a stopover along a very long journey and, like an ant understanding quantum physics, we do not, in this existence, possess either the sensory or mental capacity to understand what comes next.

 

I definitely go with B because I have called myself a
Christian - Buddhist......... because I didn't know what else at that time to
term a Christian who believed in reincarnation?!


Universal Salvation, is everybody eventually led back to heaven/paradise/love?

 

I was in a state of shock for over a year after reading.......
I do believe that you would really like the Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus who near death experiencer Bruce MacDonald saw
teaching his disciples the hidden truths..........
He gave up the career that he was all trained for after his NDE......

https://books.google.ca/books?id=kbiGjKJl4D4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

I believe that the author of the opening post was attempting to
show how a religion can gain a reputation for peacefulness and I think he
was intending a comparison to a certain other religion...........
that doesn't have a similar rep for peacefulness and tranquility!

 

That has been my experience as well.

 

Agreed which is why there is no offense taken. It is intent rather than action that decides whether an action is "good" or "bad."

Still, if Jews, or Americans, or even tall people were used in a similar way couldn't they find offense?

 

Yes, I think we can all agree that Modern Secular Humanism (as well), is more peaceful than the Bible.
In Mt 10:34 Jesus allegedly said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Sounds pretty violent, to me.
During the violent and barbaric Crusades (holy war done in Jesus' name!), Jesus approved of that, or of course if he cared that people were slaughtering in his name he would have, being supposedly all-powerful and all-loving, simply snapped his all-powerful fingers and come down and tried to educate, just educate, his "children" that he claimed to love so much, that slaughtering in his name was ethically wrong. But he didn't, so he either approved of killing in his name (like Allah does), or he's not actually loving, and/or not actually real like the Bible claims. And if he's not real, then Christians need to give up on the nonsense belief that said 2000 year-old invisible magic zombie is going to magically let them "survive their own deaths".

 

Try submitting the hearsay of a religion in a court of law as "evidence".....courts of law deal in reality, and not in hearsay. The Bible was hearsay, passed down VERBALLY for 40 to 80 years after Jesus' death....so of course that isn't admissable, and is also past any statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations are largely put in place because of course people' memories are not reliable after many decades - making the Bible not reliable, so therefore not up to a "court-room level" of evidence. Jesus would know this if he's all-knowing of course, but he had refused in 2000 years to provide said level of evidence, so of course he's not actually all-loving, and/or not actually real.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

I was using Buddhism as an example of what appears to be a GOOD religion - a good religion that Jesus is keeping out of heaven, because Jesus is a real prick. It was not meant to demean Buddhists - but to show that god/Jesus/Christians are basically racists and intolerant.

Agree 100%! "If someone like the Buddha, the Dali Lama, or Ghandi cannot gain admittance into "Christian" heaven despite their myriad of good works simply because they do not believe in the "Christian God" then the "Christian God" is not worthy of worship or even belief."

 

Correct - Jesus/Allah don't make sense, because the Dalai Lama, no matter how many Nobel Peace prizes he might win for no matter how many good things he might do in his life, is banned from "heaven", and "only deserves HELL" - all for simply not "believing in Jesus (or Allah)". Punishing people simply for their beliefs is making belief a thought-crime. Modern Secular Humanism cautions against punishing people for mere "thought-crimes".

 

I don't really understand why you specifically chose Buddhists for this question. The idea of hell has always seemed unfair to me, so I wouldn't choose a) no matter what (despite personally disliking Buddhism a lot).

Buddhism in the West tends to be eclectic and conforming to the values of the Enlightenment (rationalism, humanism, etc.) which is wildly different from Buddhism in Asia, where there was a theocratic Tibetan state headed by the Dalai Lama, support for Japanese imperialism and violence during World War II, and still is violence against Muslim minorities.

 

Uh, I disagree with the obviously moralising tone of the OP in deciding between the two options, but I'm going to have to go with no, it wouldn't be. I don't think anything would really change whatsoever if Buddhists were banned from the UK, but nor is that a call to do so.

 

On that note.....
I would be honoured if you would take a stab at this potentially controversial
topic:

Who would you prefer for the role of Elijah?

......

I don't know this for certain... but I have read powerful evidence that
Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus travelled to India, Nepal and Tibet......
and when he was in Tibet at the monastery.... .he did not teach......
he read and read and read scrolls.......

 

Jesus' heaven, per Catholic theology, isn't a Buddhist free zone. Nice strawman you created with Choice A. (of course, most of us would prefer Choice B. I as a Catholic Christian believe Choice B will be the way heaven is (with Buddhists, Baptists, Catholics, pagans and even some atheists).

 

Total bigotry. I shouldn't have to "stay in the closet" as a Christian. Thankfully I live in the U.S. where the Constitution guarantees my right to my choice of religious expression and freedom of speech.

 

Love the "straw heaven" you created. Thankfully it is nothing like the heaven that most Christians believe in. It's your warped straw version of it.

 

The belief isn't what causes the damage--the actions do.

 

I don't want to silence you.