8
   

Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 02:49 am
@igm,
You haven't answered any of my question. The question is what you mean by enlightenment, and you won't answer that. I suspect you can't answer that. You've done exactly what the christian fanatics do when the articles of their faith are challenged. You've tried to shift the burden of proof, you've tried to divert the discussion, you've lied, you've made wild and false accusations, you've attempted to suggest that i'm too stupid to understand. You act just like the christian religious fanatics.

Your belief set is exactly that, a belief set. You have no proof for any of it, and it's based on blind faith. It is a religion and it is based on religious superstition just like any other religion.

As per the topic, i've quetioned your beliefs. You can't handle it.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 03:40 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

The question is what you mean by enlightenment, and you won't answer that.

What has what I mean by enlightenment got to do with Buddhism? I believe in Buddhism not what I mean by the term enlightenment.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 03:54 am
@igm,
I linked and quoted a post in which you wrote of enlightenment. I then asked you what you mean by enlightenment. You seem incapable of answering that simple question.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 04:12 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Have you ever questioned other peoples beliefs?


Sure. What's not to question in I-Slam or Evolutionism??
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 05:44 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I linked and quoted a post in which you wrote of enlightenment. I then asked you what you mean by enlightenment. You seem incapable of answering that simple question.

Do you want to talk about me or do you want to talk about Buddhism? If you want to talk about me then I don't want to talk about me. If you want to talk about Buddhism then talk about Buddhism.

timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 06:24 am
img wrote:
If you want to talk about me then I don't want to talk about me.


So, why do you come to this thread, whose purpose is a personal question, as per OP?

Religionists always try to evade questions when their beliefs are fact-checked..
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 06:37 am
@timur,
img wrote:
If you want to talk about me then I don't want to talk about me.

timur wrote:

So, why do you come to this thread,

To talk to a JW about his beliefs which are obviously about the JW doctrine itself.

timur wrote:

whose purpose is a personal question, as per OP?

The OP is about questioning other people's belief and that is why I came to this thread.

timur wrote:

Religionists always try to evade questions when their beliefs are fact-checked..

If you are accusing me of evading questions about my beliefs then what are they and what evidence do you have that I evaded those beliefs?
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 06:45 am
igm wrote:
To talk to a JW about his beliefs which are obviously about the JW doctrine itself
.

This is the archetype of a religionist trying to evade the question.

Those are two different matters as everyone interprets his religion as he wishes.

One of the main goals of buddhism (or even the only one) is enlightenment.

But if your premise is that I don't know what enlightenment means why do you want discuss buddhism?

Arrogance, self-serving bigotry that's what it is.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 06:48 am
@igm,
I want to know what you mean by enlightenment. As the linked post shows, you have some concept of enlightenment which you used when responding to CI. Don't try to make out that this is some kind of personal vendetta against you, you're just not that important. I chose the post in which you responded to CI so as to avoid any claim on your part that i was out to get you. However, there were literally pages and pages of hits when i did a search for which the criterion was: "igm+the way to end suffering is enlightenment." I could post dozens of your posts here, linked, in which you have brought up enlightenment.

Timur is right, when you try to corner a religionist on their beliefs, they will do everything they can to avoid it. You have never yet attempted to answer the perfectly reasonable question i posed about enlightenment, which was clearly based on your use of the term.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 06:50 am
@timur,
I thought it was pretty f*cking hilarious when he attempted to divorce enlightenment from Buddhism, but i decided to give him a pass on that one, as i was already hammering him about his dishonesty and his evasions.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:11 am
@timur,
igm wrote:

To talk to a JW about his beliefs which are obviously about the JW doctrine itself.

This was my only reason for coming to this thread. Setanta asked me something without an invitation to do so and made it clear he had no interest in finding out about Buddhism.

timur wrote:

This is the archetype of a religionist trying to evade the question.

Show me how you can draw that conclusion from my post to you?
timur wrote:

Those are two different matters as everyone interprets his religion as he wishes.

What are the two different matters? Buddhism is about what the Buddha taught not about how an individual understands it as that changes over time and could be a misunderstanding of those teachings.
timur wrote:

One of the main goals of buddhism (or even the only one) is enlightenment.


What is the purpose of enlightenment? If the goal is that why is that the goal?

timur wrote:

But if your premise is that I don't know what enlightenment means why do you want discuss buddhism?

It is not my premise show me a quote where I've said it is? One of the goals is to understand what the Buddha meant by the term.

The Buddha said, 'I teach only one thing, suffering and how to put an end to it', everything else was an explanation of how to do it.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:15 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I thought it was pretty f*cking hilarious when he attempted to divorce enlightenment from Buddhism, but i decided to give him a pass on that one, as i was already hammering him about his dishonesty and his evasions.

This is completely untrue, show my quote that proves you are correct if you disagree.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:15 am
Quote:
The Buddha said, 'I teach only one thing, suffering and how to put an end to it', everything else was an explanation of how to do it.


You are such a phony-baloney bullsh*t artist. In another thread i asked you repeatedly how impoverished farmers who can barely feed their families are supposed to end their suffering. You answered, repeatedly, that the way to end suffering is through enlightenment. Now that you're being cornered, you want to deny that enlightenment has anything to do with Buddhism.

Liar.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 07:19 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You answered, repeatedly, that the way to end suffering is through enlightenment. Now that you're being cornered, you want to deny that enlightenment has anything to do with Buddhism.

Liar.

Where have I said that enlightenment has nothing to do with Buddhism? The Buddha said that enlightenment puts and end to suffering.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 08:49 am
@Setanta,
I disagree. Up to date all your allegations and insults, when I've asked for proof, you've failed to find and post them. You make things up about people and hope that others swallow it without checking.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 09:23 am
@igm,
igm, regarding Adam and Eve wrote:
, , , ,How do you know that? You will be resurrected (so you believe) so why wouldn't they? . . .
I know Setanta probably has you in a state of confusion; but please read my posts carefully. Deliberate sin cannot be forgiven, (See Hebrews 10:26, cited by me often). I can't judge who may or may not be guilty of such a sin other than Adam and Eve. They were perfect. They chose to sin. I am sorry for them. But I am sure I will never get to meet them.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 09:39 am
@neologist,
My conclusion is if the JW religion kills children and praises them for doing so... it's wrong. I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you want to show evidence that refusing a transfusion has never killed a child under 16 then I'll listen to your denial of the fact.

The JW religion seems very dangerous because of it's belief that whole blood transfusions are a sin and to deliberately avoid a transfusion has so much fear for JW's they are willing to die rather commit this sin.

It is not a sin and cannot be so, children and adults die for no reason.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 01:01 pm
@igm,
Your desire for license is strong, ig.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 02:06 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:
My conclusion is if the JW religion kills children and praises them for doing so... it's wrong. I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you want to show evidence that refusing a transfusion has never killed a child under 16 then I'll listen to your denial of the fact.
I don't believe you have shown denial of a transfusion to have been a proximate cause of death in a child under 16. That would come under the heading of criminal cases where parents were found guilty, would it not?
igm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2013 02:20 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

igm wrote:
My conclusion is if the JW religion kills children and praises them for doing so... it's wrong. I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you want to show evidence that refusing a transfusion has never killed a child under 16 then I'll listen to your denial of the fact.
I don't believe you have shown denial of a transfusion to have been a proximate cause of death in a child under 16. That would come under the heading of criminal cases where parents were found guilty, would it not?


Neo, wake up!

http://www.cftf.com/comments/kidsdied.html

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."--AWAKE! May 22, 1994, page 2
HANDSOME boys and beautiful smiling girls--"Youths Who Put God First"--brighten the magazine cover, making it an issue easy to place in the hands of unsuspecting millions answering the knock at their door. Only upon opening the May 22, 1994 AWAKE! magazine do readers discover that the appealing photos represent kids who died in obedience to the Watchtower Society's ban on blood transfusions.
Posed together in a group portrait in the foreground of Awake!'s cover are three extremely photogenic youngsters. Fifteen-year-old Adrian Yeatts died September 13, 1993, after the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Canada, declared him a "mature minor" and rejected the Child Welfare department's request for court-ordered transfusions. Twelve-year-old Lenae Martinez died in California on September 22, 1993, after the Valley Children's Hospital ethics committee ruled her a "mature minor" and decided not to seek a court order.

Twelve-year-old Lisa Kosack died (no date given) in Canada after holding off transfusion therapy by threatening that she "would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood." (page 13)

Did the Watchtower Society actually summon Adrian, Lenae, and Lisa for a group photo session in morbid anticipation of their martyrdom? Evidently not, since each is shown in the identical pose in separate photos with different backgrounds on pages 3, 9, and 12 of the magazine. The group portrait was produced, no doubt, in the photocomposition lab at the sect's Brooklyn headquarters. Individual photos of 23 other attractive youths fill the background on Awake!'s cover. These other youngsters are neither named nor discussed, but the implication is that they too all died refusing blood products.

The feature articles on "Youths Who Put God First" fill the first fifteen pages of the May 22 Awake!--nearly half the issue. More than a third of this space is devoted to handsome, dimple-cheeked Adrian. The story relates cute anecdotes from his early childhood and reveals him to be a sensitive, intelligent, lovable boy anyone would be proud to have as a son......


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 01:47:15