Message for Atheists

[polygone]

I, for one, do not have a problem with the Crusades (excepting the 4th and Albigensian Crusades).

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the 9/11 attacks either...

 

[xAtheistx]

9/11 spawned a surge of national pride and patriotism, therefore it is evil.

 

[Osiris]

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the 9/11 attacks either...

Well, the reason for the crusades was to defend against attacks caused by some muslim nations (I would support some of the crusades, if it weren't for them, we'd all be muslims).

The reason behind the 9/11 attacks was made on sheer ignorance by radical islamic members who take advantage of the quran to manipulate people for their own military/terrorist purpose.

 

[urnotme]

Not all atheists are communists. I'm pretty sure Hitler believed in God.

Why would you post this and then say you are not going to answer any argument? Do you think that your post cannot stand up to scrutiny, so you want to ignore the arguments that may arise?

Hitler was a catholic.

 

[AlexandraB]

Hitler was a catholic.

Now there's a surprise...




Did I say that out loud..??!!??

 

[urnotme]

No sorry, you are quite wrong. There was nothing supernatural or all-knowing about him. He vehemently repulsed all attempts to raise his status, and resisted all attempts to create effigies or portraits of him through the simple concern that people would deify him. Buddhists are strongly encouraged, from the first, to question all statements and facts laid before them, as truth (kalamaSuttra)
and to discern for themselves the veracity of anything to the point of examining a subject exhaustively. And he included his own teachings as topics for the same scrutiny.

It looks like his status was raised anyway because a budhist on this forum said he is god just not the creator. He said the buha didn't deny the existence of a creator he jut didn't believe in one.

 

[urnotme]

Any response to this question?


May the Lord bless you and keep you.
May the Lord let his face shine on you and be gracious to you.
May the Lord uncover his face to you and bring you peace.

I disagree with him.

 

[AlexandraB]

sorry... see below...
http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-077.html

 

[AlexandraB]

It looks like his status was raised anyway because a budhist on this forum said he is god just not the creator. He said the buha didn't deny the existence of a creator he jut didn't believe in one.

Would you indicate to me where this post is? I can't locate it, and i'd be interested to see what Buddhist states that...

Buddha neither denied nor validated the existence of a deity... He said it was useless to waste time on the imponderable.....

http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-077.html

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste I are sceptical,

thank you for the post.

But you needed Siddhartha Gautama.

whilst this seems to be correct, it actually is not.

it is, of course, correct that Buddha Shakyamuni is the 4th Buddha of this fortunate eon.. however Buddha Dharma makes clear that a being can Awaken and become Liberated without a Buddha appearing. these beings are called Pratyekabuddha.

From what very little I have heard of Buddhism, there are other Buddhas and people who are in the process of becoming Buddhas (Boddhisatvas?).

this is correct. the Tipitaka explains that Buddha Shakyamuni is the fourth Buddha to arise in our fortunate eon, there will be a total of 1,000 Buddhas which arise in this fortunate eon, the next one being Buddha Maitreya.

But if anyone says "the Buddha" they are referring to one specific individual. He was special, He stands above all the rest. Without Him - His teachings, His actions - your religion would not exist.

it sort of depends on the cultural context that the term is being used. Generally speaking, however, the term Buddha is used to denote the most recent Buddha, regardless of which Buddha that happens to be.

our religious path would exist without the arising of a Buddha, though our level of attainment would be that of a Pratyekabuddha not a Samyaksambuddha.

I therefore submit the possibility that, despite what Buddhists believe these days, Buddha WAS a supernatural all-knowing power, just like Baha'u'llah, the Founder of my religion.

Buddha Shakyamuni was asked if he was a god and he said "no". he was asked if he was a human and he said "no". When, in exasperation they asked "well, what are you?" Buddha Shakyamuni asnwered "Awake."

it is correct to say that Buddhas are omniscient, however, it is not omniscience like the term is used in Western Hemisphere cultures. Buddhas know, completely, what they turn their attention to.

metta,

~v

 

[SecretOfFatima]

Hitler was a catholic.

Sorry, I don't agree with you.
Have a look at this information
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html
or here if you think i just made this up
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html



May the Lord bless you and keep you.
May the Lord let his face shine on you and be gracious to you.
May the Lord uncover his face to you and bring you peace.

 

[Fuzzy]

Sorry, I don't agree with you.
Have a look at this information
http://www.geocities.com/chiniquy/Hitler.html

Which specifically only covers Hitler from 1941 until his death.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm features a variety of statements by Hitler
demonstrating, if not a belief in the Christian faith, a working knowledge of said faith.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm specifically addresses Table Talk (the site you cited earlier) and references contemporary support for Hitler's Christianity.

http://www.remember.org/6/hitler-and-religion.html A number of URLs related to the subject.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html covers a lot of ground.

Christian? Atheist? Somewhere in the middle, and working both sides?

 

[I_are_sceptical]

Namaste I are sceptical,

thank you for the post.

Okay, thank you. I would like to discuss/challenge some of your statements, but not knowing much about Buddhism I'd better not.

 

[vajradhara]

Okay, thank you. I would like to discuss/challenge some of your statements, but not knowing much about Buddhism I'd better not.

Namaste I are sceptical,

thank you for the post.

no worries

metta,

~v

 

[AlexandraB]

Okay, thank you. I would like to discuss/challenge some of your statements, but not knowing much about Buddhism I'd better not.

Why don't you ask about what you do not know or understand? We'd be more than happy to reply if we can, or find a reliable source to answer you, if we can't.... discuss, challenge and debate away... How can anyone expand their font of knowledge if they do not explore?
As always, with respect and a smile,
Alex

 

[I_are_sceptical]

discuss, challenge and debate away.

Okay.

Buddha Dharma makes clear that a being can Awaken and become Liberated without a Buddha appearing. these beings are called Pratyekabuddha.

our religious path would exist without the arising of a Buddha, though our level of attainment would be that of a Pratyekabuddha not a Samyaksambuddha.

Therefore, without Siddhartha Gautama's teachings, becoming a Samyaksambuddha is impossible?

 

[Aradia]

Okay.

Therefore, without Siddhartha Gautama's teachings, becoming a Samyaksambuddha is impossible?

Not quite. While the specifics differ between schools, this is a basic explanation of the theravada viewpoint:

A "sammasambuddha" (samyakasambuddha) is a self-awakened buddha who can teach the dhamma (dharma) to others.

A "paccekabuddha" (pratyekabuddha) is a self-awakened buddha, but cannot teach the dhamma (dharma) to others.

A "savakabuddha" (sravakabuddha) is awakened through hearing the dhamma (dharma).

Thus, a sammasambuddha (such as Siddhartha) is required for somebody to become a savakabuddha.


(Of the word pairs, the first is Pali, the second in parentheses is Sanskrit. Theravadins generally use Pali, so keep this in mind if you choose to search for information.)

 

[I_are_sceptical]

A "sammasambuddha" (samyakasambuddha) is a self-awakened buddha who can teach the dhamma (dharma) to others.

A "paccekabuddha" (pratyekabuddha) is a self-awakened buddha, but cannot teach the dhamma (dharma) to others.

A "savakabuddha" (sravakabuddha) is awakened through hearing the dhamma (dharma).

Thus, a sammasambuddha (such as Siddhartha) is required for somebody to become a savakabuddha.

So Siddhartha was special, stands above other Buddhas?

 

[urnotme]

Now there's a surprise...




Did I say that out loud..??!!??

He started out that way but I am sure he wasn't following tthe teachings of the church. Somebody said he stayed with the church but if he continnued to go to church I think it was just to make people think he was doing the right thing.

 

[urnotme]

Would you indicate to me where this post is? I can't locate it, and i'd be interested to see what Buddhist states that...

Buddha neither denied nor validated the existence of a deity... He said it was useless to waste time on the imponderable.....

http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-077.html

It was a long time ago in a different thread. I looked and maybe I misread the post. Noself did call him Lord Buddha though.. Maybe Lord isn't meant to connote divinity though. http://www.christianforums.com/t2503997-buddhism-and-god.html