Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

igm wrote:
neologist wrote:
Death, IMO, is preferable to deliberate sin.

Why? You still haven't given a reason. What will happen to you if you deliberately sin e.g. by accepting a transfusion? You've said you're going to probably be forgiven so why not live with this particular sin in order for your family to have the benefits of your still being with them?

Actuary, I have. Adam and Eve's sin was deliberate. Were I to sin deliberately, I could not expect anything other than their eventuality. It would be a mistake to presume forgiveness, using it as a license to sin.

So, you'd prefer to die and leave your family because you would suffer the eventuality suffered by Adam and Eve... what would that be?

2 Replies

@igm,

I linked and quoted a post in which , responding to CI, you wrote of enlightenment. This is not about my definition of enlightenment, it's about what you mean you say enlightenment. Nowhere have i said that i don't know what enlightenment means. I am asking what you mean by it when you use it in a response such as the one you made to CI.

We can proceed as soon as you tell me what enlightenment means to you. I am asking what you mean by enlightenment when you use it in a context such as your response to CI. Why don't you stop trying to weasel out of this and just answer that very simple question.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

igm wrote:
. . . e.g. The Buddha (subject) was not enlightened (predicate) (both together is the proposition or thesis (what is being claimed) the reasoning (none so far from you) and finally an example (again none so far from you).
By contrast, my explanations are a heck of a lot easier to follow.

Setanta is a hostile opponent he has made it clear in the past that he despises me and Buddhism. Buddhists don't explain Buddhism to anyone who despises Buddhism. The quote above is my way of asking Setanta to give a reason for his claim against the Buddha.

2 Replies

@igm,

I didn't make any claim against the Buddha. In fact, what is going on here is that you are attempting to weasel out of providing an explanation for your beliefs. I linked and quoted a post in which you used the term enlightenment. CI is not a Buddhist, and you seemed then to think it was OK to use the term enlightenment in your response to him. What did you mean by that? It's a simple question, and you are trying every feeble trick you can think of to avoid answering the question.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I linked and quoted a post in which , responding to CI,

That is a past post which could be out of context and incorrectly copied. I will only deal with your first post to me in this thread and when that is answered I will move on to the next post created in this thread not old posts which may or may not be correct and may or may not be out of context.

Ci has not posted in this thread. Nothing about peasants has been posted in this thread...is that clear?

Setanta wrote:

We can proceed as soon as you tell me what enlightenment means to you.

We both need to be talking about the same thing so I'll need to know your understanding of enlightenment or rephrase your questions from that first post so that I do not require you to show you'd understand any reply I gave.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Double posting again Set!?! See my next post above for an answer.

1 Reply

@igm,

It is not incorrectly copied you snide little guttersnipe. You can follow the link to read the thread if you want to. You can dictate whatever terms you like you nasty little online nazi, but i'm not bound by your dictates. What a creep, and what a bully you'd be if you could enforce your nastiness.

You don't need to know anything from me. You just have to answer the question. I suspect that you won't do that because you rightfully judge that you will be unable to defend your superstitious belief set.

1 Reply

@igm,

I didn't "double post," and you have not answered, you've just tried once again to weasel out of answering the question.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It is not incorrectly copied you snide little guttersnipe. You can follow the link to read the thread if you want to. You can dictate whatever terms you like you nasty little online nazi, but i'm not bound by your dictates. What a creep, and what a bully you'd be if you could enforce your nastiness.

You don't need to know anything from me. You just have to answer the question. I suspect that you won't do that because you rightfully judge that you will be unable to defend your superstitious belief set.

You have made some accusations but have not shown any evidence that they are true. They are just baseless accusations and are like water off a duck's back to me.

Create a question that allows me to answer to someone who seems to know nothing about Buddhism and I will answer it.

1 Reply

@igm,

You said you didn't know if the question was correctly copied, which is a nasty implicit accusation on your part. I linked the post, you can go see it for yourself, instead of making vicious accusations, which is what you have been up to in this thread. You claim that i seem to know nothing ab out Buddhism because i do not immediately embrace your belief set, but that's horseshit. I took Buddhist instruction before you were born. This "you don't understand" horseshit is JLN's favorite trick. Essentially it suggests that anyone who does understand would believe as he does. You're just trying to use the tactic yourself.

The question is simple, and you won't answer it. What do you mean by enlightenment? What evidence do you have that it exists? Stop weaseling nd answer the question.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I didn't "double post," and you have not answered, you've just tried once again to weasel out of answering the question.

lol this is a double post. You've just double posted that you don't double post Laughing

1 Reply

It would be refreshing, although i don't expect this kind of honesty from you, if you were to admit that i did not double post. Furthermore, your "again" suggests that i commonly double post. That's bullshit, too. You're looking very bad, very dishonest in this thread.

1 Reply

@igm,

You're absolutely loony. That is not a double post, nor was the post for which you accused me of double posting. Do you have severe vision problems, or is drugs or alcohol?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

So, you'd prefer to die and leave your family because you would suffer the eventuality suffered by Adam and Eve... what would that be?

Uhh! Do you see Adam and Eve around anywhere?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You said you didn't know if the question was correctly copied, which is a nasty implicit accusation on your part.

It's not. Can you prove that its not?

Setanta wrote:

I linked the post, you can go see it for yourself, instead of making vicious accusations, which is what you have been up to in this thread.

Baseless accusation. Where is your proof?

Setanta wrote:

You claim that i seem to know nothing ab out Buddhism because i do not immediately embrace your belief set, but that's horseshit. I took Buddhist instruction before you were born.

You haven't demonstrated that you know anything... hearsay... and unsubstantiated.

Setanta wrote:

What do you mean by enlightenment? What evidence do you have that it exists?

This is your opening post:

Setanta wrote:

Hey, dipshit, you want to play this game? What evidence can you provide that your boy Siddartha ever achieved enlightenment? What evidence to you have that there is any such thing as enlightenment? What evidence do you have that there are degrees of enlightenment? In short, what evidence do you have fo your favorite blind-faith superstition?

I am following the theme of the thread, i am questioning your beliefs.

Answer to question 1. I can't provide evidence that you'd understand because you don't understand what it means to achieve enlightenment so any answer I give you wont understand. Unless you prove me wrong by explain what enlightenment is.

Answer to question 2. Same as my answer to question 1.

Answer to question 3. There are no degrees of enlightenment... in Mahayana Buddhism.

Answer to question 4. None that you'd understand on the evidence that you've shown... which is none.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

igm wrote:
So, you'd prefer to die and leave your family because you would suffer the eventuality suffered by Adam and Eve... what would that be?
Uhh! Do you see Adam and Eve around anywhere?

What does that mean? They will not be resurrected in time for the 1000 yr test?

1 Reply

@igm,

You seem equally unable to answer questions (what is enlightenment?) as you are to recognize answers to questions you have asked.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

It would be refreshing, although i don't expect this kind of honesty from you, if you were to admit that i did not double post. Furthermore, your "again" suggests that i commonly double post. That's bullshit, too. You're looking very bad, very dishonest in this thread.

Show me the proof in anything that matters. Who cares whether you double posted or not... you did get over it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're absolutely loony. That is not a double post, nor was the post for which you accused me of double posting. Do you have severe vision problems, or is drugs or alcohol?

Who cares... you shouldn't.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:
igm wrote:
So, you'd prefer to die and leave your family because you would suffer the eventuality suffered by Adam and Eve... what would that be?
Uhh! Do you see Adam and Eve around anywhere?
What does that mean? They will not be resurrected in time for the 1000 yr test?

They are dead and will stay dead. No resurrection. Don't know where you got that idea.
Just dead.
No roasting, toasting, baking or broiling. No enlightenment, either.

1 Reply

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know