The Big Questions of the Universe

[Meganerdbomb]

Maybe 123's talking about the Old Testament ? As I remember, God was pretty damn violent (not that there's anything wrong with that) back then.

Every part other than the life of Jesus pretty much.  Which includes old Testament and half of the New Testament.  To say they are "hateful and violent prone" is really an understatement.  Followers who take those parts literally also shown "hateful and violent prone" traits.

As for intuitively immoral, that is based on the harms principle.  You can always argue for other forms of moral system, but so far the only argument that came out is "divine will" which actually requires at least heaven and hell to be taken literally.

If you just read the Jesus part, that's not so bad.

Not   take the bible literally is the worst attempt to save a religion that   claims to know the truth about everything.  What the Bible teaches are   so hateful, violent prone, and intuitively immoral, that it can only be   justify by being the literal truth.

I don't know how anyone can swallow the oppressive teachings without believing in the literal truth of heaven and hell.

There's   nothing oppressive or immoral about the Bible. That you would even say   such a thing proves that you understand little to nothing about it. And   of course it's the literal and absolute truth. To say anything else is   preposterous.

To be precise, it doesn't matter what I draw out of it since I neither believe nor follow it.  What does matter is the huge among of hates and violence among those who does follows it.  They can certainly find passages in the Bible that justify their behaviors.

Yeah, well, I  don't really see how you could take heaven and hell figuratively to be honest. Or why you'd want to since heaven is kinda one of the major perks of Christianity. Although, Valhalla sounds pretty neat too. 


Anything can be used to support your position if you take it out of context enough. Real Christianity is quite possibly the most nonviolent religion on the planet.

[Somebody]

For nonviolent religions, I would have to vote Amish

[Meganerdbomb]

The Amish are Christian.

[Naryar]

Nonviolent religions... you must mean Buddhism or Jainism ?

[TeamXtreemer]

Nonviolent religions... you must mean Buddhism or Jainism ?

Buddhism seems interesting.

[Chaosmancer]

Buddhism is a lenient religion, they give guidelines rather than rules, and don't pester you about random crap.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

Buddhism is ruled by a fat man

[Chaosmancer]

Buddhism isn't ruled by a God or anybody really. I suppose that it could be 'ruled' by the four noble truths, the five aggregates, the ten precepts, and the eightfold path.

And why the hell can I remember this all from RE?

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

And why the hell can I remember this all from RE?

Because the Buddha is fat

[Chaosmancer]

Doesn't look very fat to me... but then again, you used to class yourself as fat. I suppose the reason is that Buddhism was genuinely interesting.

[Scourge of teh Galaxy]

Doesn't look very fat to me

[Chaosmancer]

Oh, right, you are going by those statues whereas I am going by the main depictions of him in pictures. Also,



I'm pretty sure that the true depiction of Buddha doesn't depict him as a big fat jelly wobbly fat bastard (I doubt anyone will get this reference, but oh well).

[FOTEPX]

Answer to all your questions:

42

[Meganerdbomb]

Nonviolent religions... you must mean Buddhism or Jainism ?

Buddhists have Kung Fu though, so they're nonviolent, but could still kick your ass.

[wakkydude]

I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.

[Chaosmancer]

I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.

I can't remember the exact reasoning for Buddhism being a religion, all I remember is that it was proven that it was... I'll check Google at some point.

[frezal]

My first question is this:

Why does god not like gay people according to the words of the Bible? He never gives any explanations for it - , he never gives explanations for ANYTHING

Oh, and logic dictates that god is female.

We wouldn't **** him. I mean, sure, he talks a big game, but he's kind of a creep. Always stalking us. Weirdo!

[123savethewhales]

I don't consider Buddhism a religion. I consider it a lifestyle. As a general rule, religions have to have some belief about the world in general (and this normally results in a god), otherwise you're just following a different way of life.

Buddhism certainly has it's own sets of supernatural beliefs which puts it in the category of religion.  They just rely on the Karma and Reincarnation rather than God to lay down the moral judgments.  It is run by the same trick, reward and punishment by supernatural forces.  And for an extra kicker, Buddhism also believe in heaven and hell.

Doesn't look very fat to me

(Image removed from quote.)

You do realize that is Budai and not Gautama Buddha right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

[frezal]

Buddhism is a lenient religion, they give guidelines rather than rules, and don't pester you about random crap.

But if you don't follow said "guidelines", you won't reach nirvana.

[123savethewhales]

Buddhism is a lenient religion, they give guidelines rather than rules, and don't pester you about random crap.

But if you don't follow said "guidelines", you won't reach nirvana.

(Image removed from quote.)

and face eternal suffering.