Trinity

[Veritas Aequitas]

thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.

if you are willing - and to be frank all you said to me is utter greek - i no nothing outside of my posts prior - and would love to understand more, but = if you are willing, to "school" me. as an ignoranous, so i may understand your above - which i honestly do not.

I', here to both say my views on things, and to learn, i see you know and i don't per Eastern Religions, and would love to learn from you more about said religions.

if you are willing.

if not, that fine, my lose, i affirm freewill, so only a request not a demand.

serously, you stated stuff above i have no knowledge of, and i welcome more understanding of Bubbism and Hinduism from you - assuming you know of them - so i may become more knowledgabe tomorrow than today.

thanks for reply Sir!

I am not into the above approach.
With our current advancements and reach of the internet, it is very easy to research any subjects, e.g. Eastern religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

My current project is an in depth research into Morality and Ethics, thus not much time for others. So far I have spent 14 months full time on that.

I believe you can do it yourself to understand almost anything these days via the internet, i.e. Wiki, Youtube, blogs, relevant sites, etc.

Here is the fishing methods:
If you follow every link, notes, and references in the following link below you would or could be an expert on Eastern religions in time if you put in the effort for full time 6 months or 12 months if part-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions

Contents

• 1 Indian religions
  • 1.1 Hinduism
    1.2 Buddhism
    1.3 Jainism
    1.4 Sikhism
  2 East Asian religions
  • 2.1 Taoism
    2.2 Shinto
    2.3 Confucianism
    2.4 East Asian Buddhism
  2.5 Vietnam
  3 See also
  4 Notes
  5 References

[gaffo]

thanks for rely, and i welcome understanding, and members that do of Restern Reiligions in this forum - whcih lacks such.

if you are willing - and to be frank all you said to me is utter greek - i no nothing outside of my posts prior - and would love to understand more, but = if you are willing, to "school" me. as an ignoranous, so i may understand your above - which i honestly do not.

I', here to both say my views on things, and to learn, i see you know and i don't per Eastern Religions, and would love to learn from you more about said religions.

if you are willing.

if not, that fine, my lose, i affirm freewill, so only a request not a demand.

serously, you stated stuff above i have no knowledge of, and i welcome more understanding of Bubbism and Hinduism from you - assuming you know of them - so i may become more knowledgabe tomorrow than today.

thanks for reply Sir!

I am not into the above approach.

fear enough, i respect your wishes, i too am a private person.

With our current advancements and reach of the internet, it is very easy to research any subjects, e.g. Eastern religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

My current project is an in depth research into Morality and Ethics, thus not much time for others. So far I have spent 14 months full time on that.

I believe you can do it yourself to understand almost anything these days via the internet, i.e. Wiki, Youtube, blogs, relevant sites, etc.

Here is the fishing methods:
If you follow every link, notes, and references in the following link below you would or could be an expert on Eastern religions in time if you put in the effort for full time 6 months or 12 months if part-time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_religions

Contents

• 1 Indian religions
  • 1.1 Hinduism
    1.2 Buddhism
    1.3 Jainism
    1.4 Sikhism
  2 East Asian religions
  • 2.1 Taoism
    2.2 Shinto
    2.3 Confucianism
    2.4 East Asian Buddhism
  2.5 Vietnam
  3 See also
  4 Notes
  5 References

yep. thanks for the reply, maybe we shall speak again somtime. peace Sir.

[Averroes]

As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus

Your video is changing the subject.

Not at all. The video I linked to is directly addressing the topic of this thread namely the Trinity. I found the ending to be very entertaining so I thought of sharing the joy with you and others here. Here it is again for those whose have missed such an entertaining moment: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus
_______________

A Christian [like a Muslim] is one who had entered into a contract with God/Allah.
Do you dispute this?

It depends what one means by a "Christian" because Christianity is not a monolithic religion. There are Trinitarian Christians and non-trinitarian Christians.

If by "Christian" one understands a follower of the real prophet Jesus, the Messiah and the son of Mary(peace be upon him) who was only a Messenger of God, the Almighty, then such a person considers prophet Jesus(pbuh) to be only a messenger of God, the Almighty and not God himself, nor His son. Such a Christian worships God, the Almighty alone. In that instance, it could be said of such a Christian that he/she is in a contract with God, the Almighty.

But if by "Christian" one understands a person who worships Jesus as God, then according to John 8:39-47, they are worshippers of Satan, the cursed whom biblical Jesus said in John 8:44 is their father:

• 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
  
  “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
  42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”[John 8:39-47]

Examples of the latter "Christians" are many. For example as we saw earlier, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism was one among so many of them. For example, Luther wrote a book "The Jews and their lies" and Wikipedia says the following about this book of Luther:

• In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]
  
  The book may have had an impact on creating antisemitic Germanic thought through the Middle Ages.[6] During World War II, copies of the book were held up by Nazis at rallies, and the prevailing scholarly consensus is that it had a significant impact on the Holocaust.
  
  In the treatise, Martin Luther describes Jews (in the sense of followers of Judaism) as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth".[9] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine",[10] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... Their_Lies

Other examples are the Catholic popes. For example, Julius III, among many others was openly in a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy by the name Innosenzo. Wikipedia has the following statement on this Pope's relationship:

• In Italy, it was said that Julius showed the impatience of a "lover awaiting a mistress" while awaiting Innocenzo's arrival in Rome and boasted of the boy's prowess in bed

Another Pope Paul II is said to have died while being sodomized by his young page boy.

Not so long ago a 600 page book “In the Closet of the Vatican” was published that detailed the sex with prostitutes, sex orgies and drug parties being held in the 21st century behind the closed doors of the Vatican.
Drug fueled sex orgies in the Vatican: https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-c ... apartment/


_______________

It is the same with Buddhism, there are the lay-Buddhists and the 'PhD' Buddhists.

For others reading this and who might not be knowledgeable in Buddhism: Buddhism is divided into Hinayana (lesser Buddhism) and Mahayana ("greater" Buddhism) and this is what Veritas often refers to in his posts as lower level and "phd" level respectively. Also, Veritas said many times on the forum that he took the vow of the Boddhisatva, in other words this means that he entered into a contract with the Mahayana!

Now, in the Nirvana Sutra, a direct command to those, like Veritas, who entered into a contract with Mahayana, is given to kill those who criticizes the way of the Mahayana:

• In just the same way, the Bodhisattva-mahasattva acts likewise for reasons of protecting Wonderful Dharma. Should beings slander Mahayana, he applies kindly lashings, in order to cure them. Or he may take life in order that what obtained in the past could be mended, thus seeing to it that the law [Dharma] could be accorded with. The Bodhisattva always thinks: "How might I best make beings aspire to faith? I shall always act as is best fitted to the occasion."[Nirvana Sutra]

According to his contract with Mahayana, Veritas is now duty bound to kill me because, well, I am not respectful(to say the least) of his "greater nonsense"! It must be hard for him not to be able to fulfill his contractual duty to kill me for criticising the despicable and disgusting Buddhism. It is important to consider that the drinking of the vaginal fluids of virgin girls is a practice in Mahayana Buddhism.

As a potential contract killer on behalf of Mahayana Buddhism, can you resist your duty to kill me?
_____________

What is most critical to Buddhists is Buddhism-proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-evpc-2

According to Buddhist scriptures, the ahimsa principle does not apply to disbelievers in Buddhism.

The history and psychology of the founder of Buddhism, namely Sidhartha, is critical to understand what is "Buddhism proper". The founder of Buddhism namely Sidhartha was born a second class citizen in ancient India. The most sacred text of the Hindus are the Vedas which are written in Sanskrit. And "ahimsa" is a Sanskrit word. However, being born a second class citizen in ancient India, lazy Sidhartha had restricted access to the Vedas. Only the Brahmins, ie the first class citizens in ancient India, could learn, recite and convey the Vedas. So, as he was born a second class citizen, Sidhartha developed an inferiority complex towards the Brahmins and that is what could have explained his opposition and revolt against the ahimsa principle by calling, according to Buddhist scriptures, for the execution of Brahmins in his preaches. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra the clear command to kill Brahmins and Buddhist-disbelievers is given:

• O good man! A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds named above. O good man! All those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. For example, such actions as digging the ground, mowing the grass, felling trees, cutting up corpses, ill-speaking, and lashing do not call forth karmic returns. Killing an icchantika comes within the same category. No karmic results ensue. Why not? Because no Brahmins and no five laws to begin with faith, etc. are involved here [Maybe: no Brahmins are concerned with the "five roots" of faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, and Wisdom]. For this reason, killing [of this kind] does not carry one off to hell. [Nirvana Sutra]

An “icchantika” in Buddhism refers to incorrigible human beings lacking the requisites for achieving “enlightenment”.

Sidhartha was not nice at all for calling for the summary execution of the Brahmins and all those who do not believe in his lazy self. Someone like me for example would be killed by a Buddhist because not only do I not believe in Sidhartha but I also find his religion despicable and disgusting.
Btw, did you drink all the vaginal fluids you were given when you took your Bodhisattva vow?
For others reading this, the following thread details the pertinence of my question to Veritas:
viewtopic.php?t=25127
_______________

[seeds]

How Trinity is possible if Son is united to Father but Father is the highest and knows certain things, like the end of time, that Son doesn't know?

When it comes to the concept of the Trinity, I try to be practical about it.

I suggest that instead of relying on the consensus opinion of a large gathering of smelly old men in a meeting that took place in Nicaea, 325 years after the death of Jesus,...

...how about we look at what the Bible itself stated in one of its most important and essential axioms, right there in the book of Genesis.

It clearly proclaims that God created man (and woman) in his own image.

In other words, our being is a reflection (a replication) of God’s being.

Now,...

(and assuming that you are not suffering from “multiple personality disorder”)

...take a good long gander at yourself and tell me where you detect the presence of any sort of “trinity” within the ontological makeup of your mind or body?
_______

I don't believe in trinity.

Yes, I pretty much understood that from the way you worded your OP.

In which case, the situation and question I offered wasn't directed at you; it was meant for those who do believe in the Trinity.

Sorry for the confusion.
_______

[seeds]

Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...

...or...

...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist.

Which is it?

Pick one and explain why.

[...Buddhism proper...]

Two of the main core principles are that of anatta and annica.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism[3] and one of the three marks of existence along with dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanence).
-wiki

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

So yes,
"...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist."

Again, we are getting off topic here (so my apologies to bahman)...

...nevertheless, you need to stop ignoring the fact that it is purported that Buddha himself claimed to have remembered a vast number of his past lives in great detail. Therefore, obviously, there must be something in the makeup of the Buddha’s being...

(something of a stable and permanent structure)

...that is capable of living and dying and being reborn over and over again.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

I completely understand why someone such as you – someone who is convinced that the only thing awaiting us after we die is eternal oblivion, would be attracted to the idea of there being no permanent self.

However, if there is no permanent self or soul to be reborn...

(in other words, nothing that is actually participating in the processes of samsara)

...then it implies that any form of “dukkha-avoiding” enlightenment will have to be achieved within the temporal confines of just one lifetime on earth.

And that doesn’t seem to bode well for those who die as children...

...(although I can’t even begin to imagine why the attainment of dukkha-avoiding enlightenment would even matter to them, seeing how, according to you, they are simply going to blink-out of existence before they’ve had any time to experience a lot of suffering).

And furthermore, what is all of this talk in Buddhism in regards to “Nirvana” being a context of reality where one experiences “eternal bliss and happiness” after achieving enlightenment?

I mean, what in the world is it that is capable of experiencing “eternal bliss and happiness” if not some form of “self” or living “soul” that can actually “experience” (feel, sense, mentally process) such things as bliss and happiness for eternity?

Oh wait, I know, it’s just the knuckle-dragging Buddhists like this guy...



...who believe in the existence of such things as samsara and Nirvana.

Look, I get it that you like the particular interpretation of Buddhism that you are touting here because, in the spirit of confirmation bias, it fits-in with and helps to support your own personal belief system.

However, you just don’t seem to realize that just like the humans who have been drawn into the “gravitational field” of Christianity, for example, and have fallen for the delusion of the Trinity,...

...likewise, you have simply been drawn into the gravitational field of Buddhism and have fallen for the delusion of “anatta” (no self).

And finally, in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread, you seem to agree with me on the need to find a logical replacement for the “old paradigm religions.”

If so, then trust me, the idea that life is meaningless and has no ultimate and eternal purpose for us as individuals, is never going to be acceptable to the vast majority of humans on earth.

And that’s because the nihilistic nonsense you are promoting is pretty much the kissing cousin of hardcore materialism and atheism.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Setting aside any conflicting interpretations of Buddhism, the bottom line is that the individualization of personal, self-aware consciousness that was once known here on earth as Siddhartha Gautama (aka, the Buddha) is either alive right now in some higher context of reality...

...or...

...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist.

Which is it?

Pick one and explain why.

[...Buddhism proper...]

Two of the main core principles are that of anatta and annica.

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism[3] and one of the three marks of existence along with dukkha (suffering) and anicca (impermanence).
-wiki

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

So yes,
"...his personal consciousness and personal sense of self-awareness have been extinguished and no longer exist."

Again, we are getting off topic here (so my apologies to bahman)...

...nevertheless, you need to stop ignoring the fact that it is purported that Buddha himself claimed to have remembered a vast number of his past lives in great detail. Therefore, obviously, there must be something in the makeup of the Buddha’s being...

(something of a stable and permanent structure)

...that is capable of living and dying and being reborn over and over again.

(Continued in next post)
_______

It is very common to go off topic in such forum and it has happened to most of my threads and I don't bother.

Where did I ignore the ideas of rebirth in certain Buddhist texts?

You are the one who deliberately ignore my points and explanation I wrote in the earlier posts, i.e.

• One point is Buddhism-proper recognizes humanity comprises humans with a wide range of tendencies in different conditions and have spiritual awareness ranging from 0.1/100 to 99.9/100 with the majority at less than 30/100.
  
  Unlike the Abrahamic religions with ONE FIXED and ONLY WAY, Buddhism-proper [also in Hinduism and others] allow Buddhists of all levels to believe and adopt practices that suit their level of spiritual propensity -as long there are no evil elements.
  This is why there are wide ranging of beliefs and practices within Buddhists with the imputed condition of continuous improvements from whatever their base are.
  
  But those Buddhists with lower level of spiritual competence have not attained the state of realization of the concepts of anatta and anicca, thus they still have the very strong proclivity to cling to the idea of a soul that can be reborn with elements in other living things, etc.
  
  There are even some sects of Buddhism [Pure Land] which are Christianity-like [probably they in the BCE predated Christianity] where one is promised eternal life [not like the Christian soul] in heaven upon merely believing in the Buddha!
  
  viewtopic.php?p=476885#p476885

If you research and read a wide range of Buddhist sutras and writings there are loads of nonsense [myths, 'kindergarten' fanciful stuffs, etc.] besides the pure Buddhism-proper doctrines [PhD stuffs].

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

If there are no permanent [anicca] and no self/soul [anatta], what is there to be reborn?

I completely understand why someone such as you – someone who is convinced that the only thing awaiting us after we die is eternal oblivion, would be attracted to the idea of there being no permanent self.

However, if there is no permanent self or soul to be reborn...

(in other words, nothing that is actually participating in the processes of samsara)

...then it implies that any form of “dukkha-avoiding” enlightenment will have to be achieved within the temporal confines of just one lifetime on earth.

And that doesn’t seem to bode well for those who die as children...

...(although I can’t even begin to imagine why the attainment of dukkha-avoiding enlightenment would even matter to them, seeing how, according to you, they are simply going to blink-out of existence before they’ve had any time to experience a lot of suffering).

And furthermore, what is all of this talk in Buddhism in regards to “Nirvana” being a context of reality where one experiences “eternal bliss and happiness” after achieving enlightenment?

I mean, what in the world is it that is capable of experiencing “eternal bliss and happiness” if not some form of “self” or living “soul” that can actually “experience” (feel, sense, mentally process) such things as bliss and happiness for eternity?

Oh wait, I know, it’s just the knuckle-dragging Buddhists like this guy...



...who believe in the existence of such things as samsara and Nirvana.

Look, I get it that you like the particular interpretation of Buddhism that you are touting here because, in the spirit of confirmation bias, it fits-in with and helps to support your own personal belief system.

However, you just don’t seem to realize that just like the humans who have been drawn into the “gravitational field” of Christianity, for example, and have fallen for the delusion of the Trinity,...

...likewise, you have simply been drawn into the gravitational field of Buddhism and have fallen for the delusion of “anatta” (no self).

And finally, in the “What causes Muslims to be violent?” thread, you seem to agree with me on the need to find a logical replacement for the “old paradigm religions.”

If so, then trust me, the idea that life is meaningless and has no ultimate and eternal purpose for us as individuals, is never going to be acceptable to the vast majority of humans on earth.

And that’s because the nihilistic nonsense you are promoting is pretty much the kissing cousin of hardcore materialism and atheism.
_______

If you have not researched Buddhism thoroughly you should not be so arrogant with the limited knowledge of Buddhism you have at present.

Dying in childhood is irrelevant to the concept of Dukkha because deaths of children happen in all aspects of life and religious considerations.

Seeds: "this talk in Buddhism in regards to “Nirvana” being a context of reality where one experiences “eternal bliss and happiness” after achieving enlightenment?"
The above talk is spoken by the lower level Buddhists not within "higher" of Buddhism.

Buddhism-proper focuses on the 'NOW' not the future nor past.
What a Buddhist-proper strive for is optimality of the good and equanimity in the Now [present moment] throughout his whole life from birth to death without any attachment nor worries of the afterlife.

Point is, if a person has done 'good' all his life, whether there is the afterlife or no afterlife it does not matter. Say, if there is really an afterlife with positives, then surely the good he had done consistently throughout his worldly life would merit whatever positive in the afterlife.
Since it does not matter, Buddhism-proper focus one's energy to the positive in one's earthly life in managing one sufferings [dukkha].

The core principle of anicca or non-self is very critical for one to optimize one's worldly life in preventing one from indulging in the default sufferings arising from the inevitable existential crisis.

'Non-self' [anicca] mean no permanent soul that will survive physical death in some heaven.
The idea of a permanent soul leads to eternalism which generates all sorts of present sufferings in worrying what will happen after death and leading one to invent all sorts of God and gods for salvations.
The inventions of God and gods lead to more sufferings of in worries of sinning, pressure of conformance, offended by blasphemy, etc. Worst, certain God condone terrible evil acts upon non-believers, note especially Islam. Christianity and others whilst pacifist impose other negatives on non-believers.

Buddhist-proper on the other hand manages to avoid worries of the afterlife so can focus his/her attention/energy with equanimity to optimize his/her earthly life and contribute positively to humanity and its future generations.

Don't be mistaken that Buddhism-proper is to be confined to Monks in monasteries or the Dalai Lama. The sangha or monkhood was necessary in the past to maintain the teachings and its doctrine but the sangha would be obsolete in the future when Information Technology and communications are more advance.

In the future, Buddhism-proper will combine with other good doctrines and practices from other religions/spirituality into a common spirituality for all of humanity to learn and practice.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As you entertained me with that video, I too will like to do the same for you, God willing. The following YT link will no doubt not fail to entertain you as well: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus

Your video is changing the subject.

Not at all. The video I linked to is directly addressing the topic of this thread namely the Trinity. I found the ending to be very entertaining so I thought of sharing the joy with you and others here. Here it is again for those whose have missed such an entertaining moment: https://youtu.be/Y0_iluq6uus
_______________

A Christian [like a Muslim] is one who had entered into a contract with God/Allah.
Do you dispute this?

It depends what one means by a "Christian" because Christianity is not a monolithic religion. There are Trinitarian Christians and non-trinitarian Christians.

If by "Christian" one understands a follower of the real prophet Jesus, the Messiah and the son of Mary(peace be upon him) who was only a Messenger of God, the Almighty, then such a person considers prophet Jesus(pbuh) to be only a messenger of God, the Almighty and not God himself, nor His son. Such a Christian worships God, the Almighty alone. In that instance, it could be said of such a Christian that he/she is in a contract with God, the Almighty.

So you agree a Muslim is one who had entered into a contract with God/Allah.

In accordance to your description of a 'Christian' above, you also agree
such a Christian is in a contract with God, the Almighty.

The critical point is the Muslim and 'Christian' had entered into a contract with God to comply with all the terms of the signed contract.

But if by "Christian" one understands a person who worships Jesus as God, then according to John 8:39-47, they are worshippers of Satan, the cursed whom biblical Jesus said in John 8:44 is their father:

• 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
  
  “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
  42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”[John 8:39-47]

Examples of the latter "Christians" are many. For example as we saw earlier, Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism was one among so many of them. For example, Luther wrote a book "The Jews and their lies" and Wikipedia says the following about this book of Luther:

• In the treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[2] afforded no legal protection,[3] and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[4] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them".[5]
  
  The book may have had an impact on creating antisemitic Germanic thought through the Middle Ages.[6] During World War II, copies of the book were held up by Nazis at rallies, and the prevailing scholarly consensus is that it had a significant impact on the Holocaust.
  
  In the treatise, Martin Luther describes Jews (in the sense of followers of Judaism) as a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth".[9] Luther wrote that they are "full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine",[10] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut".
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... Their_Lies

Other examples are the Catholic popes. For example, Julius III, among many others was openly in a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy by the name Innosenzo. Wikipedia has the following statement on this Pope's relationship:

• In Italy, it was said that Julius showed the impatience of a "lover awaiting a mistress" while awaiting Innocenzo's arrival in Rome and boasted of the boy's prowess in bed

Another Pope Paul II is said to have died while being sodomized by his young page boy.

Not so long ago a 600 page book “In the Closet of the Vatican” was published that detailed the sex with prostitutes, sex orgies and drug parties being held in the 21st century behind the closed doors of the Vatican.
Drug fueled sex orgies in the Vatican: https://nypost.com/2017/07/05/vatican-c ... apartment/

Your description of a Christian [per Quran] above do not matter.
Obviously those generally recognized as Christians will not agree with you.

What is critical is they had entered into a contract.
If you think, they worship 'Satan' those 'Christians' did enter into a contract which an overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all-even enemies'.

My point, where there is a contract, the believers must comply with all the terms stipulated by God in the contract.

In the case with the Muslim contract with Allah, the terms of contract are loaded with evil terms, i.e. Muslims are obligated to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threats [fasadin] as in Q5:33.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the same with Buddhism, there are the lay-Buddhists and the 'PhD' Buddhists.

For others reading this and who might not be knowledgeable in Buddhism: Buddhism is divided into Hinayana (lesser Buddhism) and Mahayana ("greater" Buddhism) and this is what Veritas often refers to in his posts as lower level and "phd" level respectively. Also, Veritas said many times on the forum that he took the vow of the Boddhisatva, in other words this means that he entered into a contract with the Mahayana!

Now, in the Nirvana Sutra, a direct command to those, like Veritas, who entered into a contract with Mahayana, is given to kill those who criticizes the way of the Mahayana:

• In just the same way, the Bodhisattva-mahasattva acts likewise for reasons of protecting Wonderful Dharma. Should beings slander Mahayana, he applies kindly lashings, in order to cure them. Or he may take life in order that what obtained in the past could be mended, thus seeing to it that the law [Dharma] could be accorded with. The Bodhisattva always thinks: "How might I best make beings aspire to faith? I shall always act as is best fitted to the occasion."[Nirvana Sutra]

According to his contract with Mahayana, Veritas is now duty bound to kill me because, well, I am not respectful(to say the least) of his "greater nonsense"! It must be hard for him not to be able to fulfill his contractual duty to kill me for criticising the despicable and disgusting Buddhism. It is important to consider that the drinking of the vaginal fluids of virgin girls is a practice in Mahayana Buddhism.

As a potential contract killer on behalf of Mahayana Buddhism, can you resist your duty to kill me?
_____________

What is most critical to Buddhists is Buddhism-proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-evpc-2

According to Buddhist scriptures, the ahimsa principle does not apply to disbelievers in Buddhism.

The history and psychology of the founder of Buddhism, namely Sidhartha, is critical to understand what is "Buddhism proper". The founder of Buddhism namely Sidhartha was born a second class citizen in ancient India. The most sacred text of the Hindus are the Vedas which are written in Sanskrit. And "ahimsa" is a Sanskrit word. However, being born a second class citizen in ancient India, lazy Sidhartha had restricted access to the Vedas. Only the Brahmins, ie the first class citizens in ancient India, could learn, recite and convey the Vedas. So, as he was born a second class citizen, Sidhartha developed an inferiority complex towards the Brahmins and that is what could have explained his opposition and revolt against the ahimsa principle by calling, according to Buddhist scriptures, for the execution of Brahmins in his preaches. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra the clear command to kill Brahmins and Buddhist-disbelievers is given:

• O good man! A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds named above. O good man! All those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. For example, such actions as digging the ground, mowing the grass, felling trees, cutting up corpses, ill-speaking, and lashing do not call forth karmic returns. Killing an icchantika comes within the same category. No karmic results ensue. Why not? Because no Brahmins and no five laws to begin with faith, etc. are involved here [Maybe: no Brahmins are concerned with the "five roots" of faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, and Wisdom]. For this reason, killing [of this kind] does not carry one off to hell. [Nirvana Sutra]

An “icchantika” in Buddhism refers to incorrigible human beings lacking the requisites for achieving “enlightenment”.

Sidhartha was not nice at all for calling for the summary execution of the Brahmins and all those who do not believe in his lazy self. Someone like me for example would be killed by a Buddhist because not only do I not believe in Sidhartha but I also find his religion despicable and disgusting.
Btw, did you drink all the vaginal fluids you were given when you took your Bodhisattva vow?
For others reading this, the following thread details the pertinence of my question to Veritas:
viewtopic.php?t=25127
_______________

We have gone the above re "violence in Buddhism" before and I have countered it efficiently each time.

Suggest you read my recent post to Seed related to rebirth but relevant to violence as well;

One point is Buddhism-proper recognizes humanity comprises humans with a wide range of tendencies in different conditions and have spiritual awareness ranging from 0.1/100 to 99.9/100 with the majority at less than 30/100.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions with ONE FIXED and ONLY WAY, Buddhism-proper [also in Hinduism and others] allow Buddhists of all levels to believe and adopt practices that suit their level of spiritual propensity -as long there are no evil elements.
This is why there are wide ranging of beliefs and practices within Buddhists with the imputed condition of continuous improvements from whatever their base are.

This is why there are 3 main schools of Buddhism, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana with hundreds of sects and sub-sects within them.

If there are to be disputes, then Buddhists will fall back on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

... those Buddhists with lower level of spiritual competence have not attained the state of realization of the concepts of anatta and anicca, thus they still have the very strong proclivity to cling to the idea of a soul that can be reborn with elements in other living things, etc.

There are even some sects of Buddhism [Pure Land] which are Christianity-like [probably they in the BCE predated Christianity] where one is promised eternal life [not like the Christian soul] in heaven upon merely believing in the Buddha!

The compromise for those of with lower spirituality to believe in all sort of non-evil nonsense is to enable them to deal with their inevitable existential crisis [sufferings - dukkha] with the hope that they can progress and graduate to higher levels i.e. the 'PhD' level.
One good compromise is the Buddha-Story which is a Myth to represent and explain the main principles of Buddhism proper to the layman and it is not a real story.

Some will progress but others may not, but since Buddhism is overridingly pacifist, there is no real issues of evilness to humanity in contrast to Islam [high evilness] and Christianity [low negatives].

I have the confidence to express the above because of the research I have done on Buddhism-proper, I claim to be a reasonable expert on the subject.
I also adopt and practice a major portion [not all] of Buddhism-proper doctrines, philosophy and practices.

As I mentioned there are all sorts of nonsense from the low level Buddhist but they are not fundamental to Buddhism proper.
Many Buddhist pray to statues of Buddha with offering but that is not part of Buddhism proper.

One point is Buddhists do not enter into a contract with Buddha like Muslims and Christians.
All the Buddhist does is to adopt the teachings and practices handed down from the Buddha which is a myth anyway.
There is no such point as a Buddhist being contractually bound to comply with any terms of a contract with Buddha.

Within Buddhism proper, what the Buddha introduced is a life problem solving technique not an ideology for believers to believe and cling to.
Note this;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is the same with Buddhism, there are the lay-Buddhists and the 'PhD' Buddhists.

For others reading this and who might not be knowledgeable in Buddhism: Buddhism is divided into Hinayana (lesser Buddhism) and Mahayana ("greater" Buddhism) and this is what Veritas often refers to in his posts as lower level and "phd" level respectively. Also, Veritas said many times on the forum that he took the vow of the Boddhisatva, in other words this means that he entered into a contract with the Mahayana!

Now, in the Nirvana Sutra, a direct command to those, like Veritas, who entered into a contract with Mahayana, is given to kill those who criticizes the way of the Mahayana:

• In just the same way, the Bodhisattva-mahasattva acts likewise for reasons of protecting Wonderful Dharma. Should beings slander Mahayana, he applies kindly lashings, in order to cure them. Or he may take life in order that what obtained in the past could be mended, thus seeing to it that the law [Dharma] could be accorded with. The Bodhisattva always thinks: "How might I best make beings aspire to faith? I shall always act as is best fitted to the occasion."[Nirvana Sutra]

According to his contract with Mahayana, Veritas is now duty bound to kill me because, well, I am not respectful(to say the least) of his "greater nonsense"! It must be hard for him not to be able to fulfill his contractual duty to kill me for criticising the despicable and disgusting Buddhism. It is important to consider that the drinking of the vaginal fluids of virgin girls is a practice in Mahayana Buddhism.

As a potential contract killer on behalf of Mahayana Buddhism, can you resist your duty to kill me?
_____________

What is most critical to Buddhists is Buddhism-proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa#cite_note-evpc-2

According to Buddhist scriptures, the ahimsa principle does not apply to disbelievers in Buddhism.

The history and psychology of the founder of Buddhism, namely Sidhartha, is critical to understand what is "Buddhism proper". The founder of Buddhism namely Sidhartha was born a second class citizen in ancient India. The most sacred text of the Hindus are the Vedas which are written in Sanskrit. And "ahimsa" is a Sanskrit word. However, being born a second class citizen in ancient India, lazy Sidhartha had restricted access to the Vedas. Only the Brahmins, ie the first class citizens in ancient India, could learn, recite and convey the Vedas. So, as he was born a second class citizen, Sidhartha developed an inferiority complex towards the Brahmins and that is what could have explained his opposition and revolt against the ahimsa principle by calling, according to Buddhist scriptures, for the execution of Brahmins in his preaches. For example, in the Nirvana Sutra the clear command to kill Brahmins and Buddhist-disbelievers is given:

• O good man! A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds named above. O good man! All those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. For example, such actions as digging the ground, mowing the grass, felling trees, cutting up corpses, ill-speaking, and lashing do not call forth karmic returns. Killing an icchantika comes within the same category. No karmic results ensue. Why not? Because no Brahmins and no five laws to begin with faith, etc. are involved here [Maybe: no Brahmins are concerned with the "five roots" of faith, vigour, mindfulness, concentration, and Wisdom]. For this reason, killing [of this kind] does not carry one off to hell. [Nirvana Sutra]

An “icchantika” in Buddhism refers to incorrigible human beings lacking the requisites for achieving “enlightenment”.

Sidhartha was not nice at all for calling for the summary execution of the Brahmins and all those who do not believe in his lazy self. Someone like me for example would be killed by a Buddhist because not only do I not believe in Sidhartha but I also find his religion despicable and disgusting.
Btw, did you drink all the vaginal fluids you were given when you took your Bodhisattva vow?
For others reading this, the following thread details the pertinence of my question to Veritas:
viewtopic.php?t=25127
_______________

We have gone the above re "violence in Buddhism" before and I have countered it efficiently each time.
I had also offered counter by experts who interpreted the above is never to be taken literally. In addition there are different views on the idea of the icchantika many schools do not agree with the doctrine of the icchantika.

Since the other East Asian Buddhist schools held that all beings possess buddha-nature incipiently as tathagatagarbha, and thus all have the potential for awakening, they found the icchantika doctrine unacceptable.
Buswell, Robert E. (2003). Encyclopedia of Buddhism, vol.1. New York: Macmillan Reference Lib. p. 351.

Buswell notes: "With the prominent exception of the Faxian-School [...], East Asian Buddhists rejected the icchantica-doctrine in favor of the notion that all beings, even the denizens of hell, retained the capacity to attain enlightenment."
-wiki

Note my challenge below;
In comparison to Muslims... show me proof of incidents or even one where Buddhists had committed violence against others while shouting "Buddha-u-Akbar" or in the name of Buddha?

Suggest you read my recent post to Seed related to rebirth but relevant to violence as well;

One point is Buddhism-proper recognizes humanity comprises humans with a wide range of tendencies in different conditions and have spiritual awareness ranging from 0.1/100 to 99.9/100 with the majority at less than 30/100.

Unlike the Abrahamic religions with ONE FIXED and ONLY WAY, Buddhism-proper [also in Hinduism and others] allow Buddhists of all levels to believe and adopt practices that suit their level of spiritual propensity -as long there are no evil elements.
This is why there are wide ranging of beliefs and practices within Buddhists with the imputed condition of continuous improvements from whatever their base are.

This is why there are 3 main schools of Buddhism, i.e. Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana with hundreds of sects and sub-sects within them.

If there are to be disputes, then Buddhists will fall back on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

... those Buddhists with lower level of spiritual competence have not attained the state of realization of the concepts of anatta and anicca, thus they still have the very strong proclivity to cling to the idea of a soul that can be reborn with elements in other living things, etc.

There are even some sects of Buddhism [Pure Land] which are Christianity-like [probably they in the BCE predated Christianity] where one is promised eternal life [not like the Christian soul] in heaven upon merely believing in the Buddha!

The compromise for those of with lower spirituality to believe in all sort of non-evil nonsense is to enable them to deal with their inevitable existential crisis [sufferings - dukkha] with the hope that they can progress and graduate to higher levels i.e. the 'PhD' level.
One good compromise is the Buddha-Story which is a Myth to represent and explain the main principles of Buddhism proper to the layman and it is not a real story.

Some will progress but others may not, but since Buddhism is overridingly pacifist, there is no real issues of evilness to humanity in contrast to Islam [high evilness] and Christianity [low negatives].

I have the confidence to express the above because of the research I have done on Buddhism-proper, I claim to be a reasonable expert on the subject.
I also adopt and practice a major portion [not all] of Buddhism-proper doctrines, philosophy and practices.

As I mentioned there are all sorts of nonsense from texts of the low level Buddhists but they are not fundamental to Buddhism proper.
Many Buddhists pray to statues of Buddha with offering but that is not part of Buddhism proper, but merely a compromise.

One point is Buddhists do not enter into a contract with Buddha like Muslims and Christians.
All the Buddhist does is to adopt the teachings and practices handed down from the Buddha which is a myth anyway.
There is no such point as a Buddhist being contractually bound to comply with any terms of a contract with Buddha.

In comparison to Muslims committing terrible evils acts quoting Quranic verses and shouting Allah-u-Akbar which is very evident;

show me proof of incidents or even one where Buddhists had committed violence against others while shouting "Buddha-u-Akbar" or in the name of Buddha?

Within Buddhism proper, what the Buddha introduced is a life problem solving technique not an ideology for believers to believe and cling to.
Note this;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

You are lying;
I never claimed to take all the Boddhisattva vows presented by various Buddhist sects,
rather I merely adopted and aligns only one of the vow, i.e.
"to be compassionate to all sentient beings and living things" generally.
I have never claimed to be a Buddhist per se and have never been religious at all.

You on the other hand you are a contracted killer by virtue that you as a Muslim had entered into a contract [ "mithaq" (covenant) ميثق Waw-Tha-Qaf ] with Allah to comply with the terms of contracts in the Quran which you are obliged [Q 5:33 and other verses] to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threats to the religion of Islam.

[Averroes]

As I mentioned there are all sorts of nonsense from the low level Buddhist but they are not fundamental to Buddhism proper.
Many Buddhist pray to statues of Buddha with offering but that is not part of Buddhism proper.

One point is Buddhists do not enter into a contract with Buddha like Muslims and Christians.
All the Buddhist does is to adopt the teachings and practices handed down from the Buddha which is a myth anyway.
There is no such point as a Buddhist being contractually bound to comply with any terms of a contract with Buddha.

Within Buddhism proper, what the Buddha introduced is a life problem solving technique not an ideology for believers to believe and cling to.
Note this;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Sidhartha was not able to solve any problem of his own, let alone those of others. Sidhartha was suffering from severe depression from living a life of unresolved deceptions. As we all know, Sidhartha's birth as a second class citizen in ancient India greatly depressed him such that it is said he abstained from food and drink for a very long period of time such that he came close to dying; this was presumably a suicide attempt. But his suicide too he could not carry out successfully! So thus he lost all motivation in life, he became a lazy parasite and begged his way through the remaining of his dull and depressed life.

Anyway, nearly all of his rumblings were violent and crazy stuffs as you said and very little were just common sense that every bum knows, for example like "not biting at the hands that feed you"; he also could not afford to be completely crazy either as being a lazy parasite he depended on the labor of the hard working people to survive. But violent he was greatly, and that is also partly explained by the fact that before he got into severe depression he was a well trained soldier. And in this way, through his violent preaches he was the cause of a lot of conflict and turmoil which eventually led to many wars among the ancient people, especially in ancient India. And history has recorded all that, and I have good scholarly books on the subject. So it is useless to attempt applying the "Skillful Means" Sutra with me, except if you want to kill me in accordance with your contract with Mahayana. But I am glad if you have renounced your Bodhisatva vows, so thus you have no contractual obligation to kill me according to the "Skillful Means" Sutra clause in your contract with Mahayana. But I will still be on my guard because according to the "Skillful Means" Sutra a Buddhist can lie, beat, torture or even kill in order to achieve his/her objective. In the past the "Skillful Means" Sutra has so often been used to justify a lot of such immoral and unethical behavior. Anyway, if everyone could defect Buddhism (like apparently you), it would bring so much peace to many regions around the world for example like Myanmar.

Indeed, nowadays the effects of Sidhartha's violent preaches can be clearly seen in countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and other such majority Buddhist countries. An example of someone strictly adhering to the rumblings and violent teachings of Sidhartha can be found in Myanmar buddhist monk Ashin Wirarthu who was dubbed by Times Magazine as "The Face of Buddhist Terror".



Another Buddhist monk in Myanmar strictly adhering to lazy Sidhartha's teachings is Sitagu Sayadaw, who being inspired by Sidhartha's violence, made a preach to an assembly of Myanmar buddhist soldiers who had been killing tens of thousands of innocent and defenseless Muslim women and children and were about to continue their genocide. In that speech, Sitagu said to these genocidal buddhist soldiers that it is alright to kill a non-Buddhist as they are not real humans. Here is the YT video of the speech https://youtu.be/0cIUTA9uae8

As we all know, Buddhists are followers of lazy Sidhartha. As Sidhartha was a lazy beggar, he preached his bum way of life to his followers. And even today, even though many are fit and healthy for work they chose the easy way and beg for a living instead of working hard and be useful members of society. You yourself know very well about this as you had no shame to ask me for charity on this thread itself; which charity I gave you by the way. Do you remember? In Islam, God, the Almighty commands us to be charitable to those who beg/ask.

As long as you only ask for charity, it's ok. But the violent social behavior of your co-religionist and their suicidal tendencies are a great concern for peace loving people. Indeed, Buddhists, who practice the teachings of Sidhartha, have not only acquired the severe depression (like yourself) of their leader but also his suicidal tendencies. Suicide through self immolation and other ways is a common place in Buddhist countries for the many Buddhists who have reached utter despair through the teachings of Sidhartha. It doesn't take a genius to understand that modeling one's lifestyle on the idle and lazy lifestyle of Sidhartha is doomed to get one to suicide sooner or later.

Anyway, I am glad you that you qualified Buddhism as nonsense and even more if you renounced your nonsensical Bhodisatva vows and if so then you have no obligation to kill me now. I am glad, God willing, I will be having some good days ahead telling the truth about this despicable and disgusting religion which is Buddhism. Nice exchanging with you. You are still stupid and ignorant though, that's not going to change I think. You still haven't replied to my question: why are you so stupid? Do you know?

[Sculptor]

Religion is mental illness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I mentioned there are all sorts of nonsense from the low level Buddhist but they are not fundamental to Buddhism proper.
Many Buddhist pray to statues of Buddha with offering but that is not part of Buddhism proper.

One point is Buddhists do not enter into a contract with Buddha like Muslims and Christians.
All the Buddhist does is to adopt the teachings and practices handed down from the Buddha which is a myth anyway.
There is no such point as a Buddhist being contractually bound to comply with any terms of a contract with Buddha.

Within Buddhism proper, what the Buddha introduced is a life problem solving technique not an ideology for believers to believe and cling to.
Note this;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

Sidhartha was not able to solve any problem of his own, let alone those of others. Sidhartha was suffering from severe depression from living a life of unresolved deceptions. As we all know, Sidhartha's birth as a second class citizen in ancient India greatly depressed him such that it is said he abstained from food and drink for a very long period of time such that he came close to dying; this was presumably a suicide attempt. But his suicide too he could not carry out successfully! So thus he lost all motivation in life, he became a lazy parasite and begged his way through the remaining of his dull and depressed life.

Anyway, nearly all of his rumblings were violent and crazy stuffs as you said and very little were just common sense that every bum knows, for example like "not biting at the hands that feed you"; he also could not afford to be completely crazy either as being a lazy parasite he depended on the labor of the hard working people to survive. But violent he was greatly, and that is also partly explained by the fact that before he got into severe depression he was a well trained soldier. And in this way, through his violent preaches he was the cause of a lot of conflict and turmoil which eventually led to many wars among the ancient people, especially in ancient India. And history has recorded all that, and I have good scholarly books on the subject. So it is useless to attempt applying the "Skillful Means" Sutra with me, except if you want to kill me in accordance with your contract with Mahayana. But I am glad if you have renounced your Bodhisatva vows, so thus you have no contractual obligation to kill me according to the "Skillful Means" Sutra clause in your contract with Mahayana. But I will still be on my guard because according to the "Skillful Means" Sutra a Buddhist can lie, beat, torture or even kill in order to achieve his/her objective. In the past the "Skillful Means" Sutra has so often been used to justify a lot of such immoral and unethical behavior. Anyway, if everyone could defect Buddhism (like apparently you), it would bring so much peace to many regions around the world for example like Myanmar.

Indeed, nowadays the effects of Sidhartha's violent preaches can be clearly seen in countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and other such majority Buddhist countries. An example of someone strictly adhering to the rumblings and violent teachings of Sidhartha can be found in Myanmar buddhist monk Ashin Wirarthu who was dubbed by Times Magazine as "The Face of Buddhist Terror".

Another Buddhist monk in Myanmar strictly adhering to lazy Sidhartha's teachings is Sitagu Sayadaw, who being inspired by Sidhartha's violence, made a preach to an assembly of Myanmar buddhist soldiers who had been killing tens of thousands of innocent and defenseless Muslim women and children and were about to continue their genocide. In that speech, Sitagu said to these genocidal buddhist soldiers that it is alright to kill a non-Buddhist as they are not real humans. Here is the YT video of the speech https://youtu.be/0cIUTA9uae8

As we all know, Buddhists are followers of lazy Sidhartha. As Sidhartha was a lazy beggar, he preached his bum way of life to his followers. And even today, even though many are fit and healthy for work they chose the easy way and beg for a living instead of working hard and be useful members of society. You yourself know very well about this as you had no shame to ask me for charity on this thread itself; which charity I gave you by the way. Do you remember? In Islam, God, the Almighty commands us to be charitable to those who beg/ask.

As long as you only ask for charity, it's ok. But the violent social behavior of your co-religionist and their suicidal tendencies are a great concern for peace loving people. Indeed, Buddhists, who practice the teachings of Sidhartha, have not only acquired the severe depression (like yourself) of their leader but also his suicidal tendencies. Suicide through self immolation and other ways is a common place in Buddhist countries for the many Buddhists who have reached utter despair through the teachings of Sidhartha. It doesn't take a genius to understand that modeling one's lifestyle on the idle and lazy lifestyle of Sidhartha is doomed to get one to suicide sooner or later.

Anyway, I am glad you that you qualified Buddhism as nonsense and even more if you renounced your nonsensical Bhodisatva vows and if so then you have no obligation to kill me now. I am glad, God willing, I will be having some good days ahead telling the truth about this despicable and disgusting religion which is Buddhism. Nice exchanging with you. You are still stupid and ignorant though, that's not going to change I think. You still haven't replied to my question: why are you so stupid? Do you know?

You are very ignorant of what is Buddhism and especially Buddhism proper.
As I had stated,

• Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
  viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

The above is an iterative model incorporating all the core principles of Buddhism.
You tell me what is wrong with the above model?

I have already told you, the Buddha Story is merely a Myth to expound the principles of Buddhism proper [re threats of old age - old man, illness [sick person], death -corpse, its solution -the monk], especially to the lower-levels-Buddhists.
But you are so thick headed and stupid to insist ALL Buddhists must believe the above "Myth" as a historical reality.

If there is such a real Prince who give up his ascendance to be king during those times, it would be very stupid of Siddharta to do so. Also it would be immoral to flee and leave his wife and son behind.
Ultimately the Buddha is against ascetism.

There is no provision of a contract [covenant] between any Buddhist and Buddha.
Instead of spoon-feeding fishes to believers [like Islam], the Buddha [Buddhism] efficiently provide a life-technique [as above] for one to learn how to fish by oneself which at the minimum will enable one to avoid basic sufferings with room for progress depending on one's current state.

Being humans, there will be some evil prone humans within the Buddhist population who will commit all sorts of evil acts and that has nothing to do with Buddhism proper. The evil prone commit evil acts due to their inherent evil nature and are not compelled by any contractual commands from Buddhism-proper.

On the other hand, all Muslims [like you] must enter into a contract with Allah whereby the Muslims are obliged to comply with the terms of the contract stipulated in the Quran.
The terms of the contract in the Quran contain loads of evil verses [e.g. 5:33] which compels all Muslims to kill non-Muslims upon the slightest threats [fasadin].

Since there are so much threats to Islam within your reach and if you [as a contracted killer] do not kill non-Muslims [as offenders and disbelieving Islam] you will be punished in hell and deprived of the usual virgins and other merits.

[Averroes]

I have already told you, the Buddha Story is merely a Myth to expound the principles of Buddhism proper [re threats of old age - old man, illness [sick person], death -corpse, its solution -the monk], especially to the lower-levels-Buddhists.
But you are so thick headed and stupid to insist ALL Buddhists must believe the above "Myth" as a historical reality.

I am really happy with your belief that Buddhism is founded on a myth. If you want to propagate that on the forum and in the Buddhist world, it's even better. In that case, I can continue talking about the Buddhist religion on the forum without my life being threatened by the possibility of you executing your contractual obligation with Mahayana in applying the "skillful means" sutra clause in order to take my life. But alas not everyone is like you to have renounced their Bodhisattva vows. For example, Ashin Wirarthu who was dubbed by the Time Magazine as "The Face of Buddhist Terror" would not be of the same opinion as you.



And the same goes for Sitagu Sayadaw and all the Buddhist monks in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and other such places, who do not even consider non-Buddhist like me and the majority of the members of the forum to be real human beings.

So, apart from the forum, my life is still in real danger from a hardcore Buddhist, who contrary to you takes his/her Bhodisatva vows seriously, and is ready to abide by his/her contractual duty with Mahayana in killing everyone who criticizes Mahayana.

Anyway, I am fine with your stance on Buddhism and its founder being mere myths. Because of that, you can continue ask me for charity as you have done before. And if I have something for you, then, God willing, I will give you as I have done before. Now I know you will not kill me for criticizing Buddhism. You still haven't told me though why you are so stupid? You can tell me and others, it's ok as we all know you are stupid. If you still don't want to tell us, it's ok too. Our discussion for once has reached a happy ending. That's nice.