Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Bozo. All you did was assert that my definition of buddhism MAY be unrelated to reality. I know for a fact that it is related to reality. So stop being a douche. Kay? Thanks.
The War on Christians Continues...
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
Bozo. All you did was assert that my definition of buddhism MAY be unrelated to reality. I know for a fact that it is related to reality. So stop being a douche. Kay? Thanks.
Except you don't.Bozo. All you did was assert that my definition of buddhism MAY be unrelated to reality. I know for a fact that it is related to reality. So stop being a douche. Kay? Thanks.
First the concept of Karma is a Hindi concept that transferred over to some Buddhist practices and is almost inevitably misunderstood by most Western belief systems.
It is not the simplistic cosmic score card most Western philosophies and religions (as well as many Buddhists) find so fun to play with using Idiomatic phrases like, "Instant Karma" (you'll see me use this one, as well as others on this site even).
The reality is, while you believe you fully understand the concept because you want others to think you have some powerful version of religious "gaydar" or some such, you really don't. It takes more than a few pages of wit to gather a full understanding of the concept. As this isn't a Buddhism website, I would suggest you take some time to self-educate on one of those before you assume so much about Buddhism. (Theravada Buddhism, as an example, concerns itself not one tiny wit with the concept of a Deity or an eternal soul, let alone Karma or rebirth (another Hindi concept)).
The differences in different practices of Buddhism is more wide-reaching than different practices of Christianity and cannot be explained in the time we are all willing to allot to this.
The idea that you have the same capacity to understand Buddhism as somebody that has practiced it for years is just pride and really doesn't have a bearing on reality. "'Kay, thanks."
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Asshat is pretty much that guy who walked into the zoo and said, "OMG! BUDDAH IS DA DEVIL!"
And no, Zombie, nobody on the left is stupid enough to try to sue a private institution like a Zoo for having a cross up. The only people stupid enough to raise a stink about this shit are the fundies in Kansas or Missouri.
And no, Zombie, nobody on the left is stupid enough to try to sue a private institution like a Zoo for having a cross up. The only people stupid enough to raise a stink about this shit are the fundies in Kansas or Missouri.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Most zoos receive some public funding from tax dollars, if I am not mistaken. Meaning, if it is not appropriate to erect a cross or nativity scene there, it shouldn't be appropriate to have statues of Buddha. I think we all know, if someone of Christian faith had put up a statue of Jesus in the zoo, there would be anti-Christian protests on those grounds, and to pretend that wouldn't be the case is foolish beyond belief.
Personally, I don't have a problem with ANY religious monument on ANY public grounds. I believe the Constitution gives us the protected rights to be able to do that, and not the contrary. It is the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, which congress is prohibited from endorsing, not the general acknowledgment, respect or reverence FOR religion. BUT.. if we are going to set the standard as we have, the Buddha's need to come down.
Personally, I don't have a problem with ANY religious monument on ANY public grounds. I believe the Constitution gives us the protected rights to be able to do that, and not the contrary. It is the ESTABLISHMENT of religion, which congress is prohibited from endorsing, not the general acknowledgment, respect or reverence FOR religion. BUT.. if we are going to set the standard as we have, the Buddha's need to come down.
I agree with this, somewhat. However my solution would be to include crosses rather than to remove Buddha. As it stands, this is a privately funded zoo and unlike "most zoos" you wouldn't need to worry about it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well if it is indeed, completely privately funded (most zoo's are not), then it can be called the First Buddhist Zoo of Kansas City! It's not an issue and the guy who is protesting has no argument.
If, however, we have decided that "acknowledgment" equals "endorsement" and government can't display any religious symbols, and the zoo gets any funding from the government, the rules need to apply across the board. I'm with you, I don't believe this is what the Constitution says, nor what it means by the Establishment Clause. I think, even if public funding is involved, displays of a religious nature are acceptable and should be allowed. But then, I was not opposed to the 10 Commandments monument being in the state house of Alabama. I agreed with Roy Moore, that this should be a protected right, even in a public building... especially in a public building!
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Oh, wait.
I'm supposed to be all for the "war on Christians"..
AHZ, I think Christians should have to shut down all their churches because I can see them from public roads. Buddhists are so much better because they don't knock on your door with tracts...
You can be whatever you want. Just don't pretend buddhism isn't a religion. Cause it is, with monks, supernatural concepts, and everything.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
I don't think buddah is the devil. I think buddhism is a religion. You're trying to pretend it's not a religion so you don't have to mentally process your hypocrisy about christianity versus other religions.
Bottom line : We all know there would be a demand from some lib teacher on her class outing that a cross be removed, while nobody really cares about a buddha. In stead of facing this hypocrisy you try to say buddhism isn;t a religion, cognitive dissonance relieved.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Notice: Im the "bad guy" for defending buddhism as a religion, with all rights concommitant therein.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Noahidism mows down everything.
"That's not a religion"
"whites aren't a race"
etc.
"That's not a religion"
"whites aren't a race"
etc.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It was funny, i was working with this chinese girl who practices the statist form of chinese buddhism.
i didn't really know the difference, until the dali llama came to town. I asked if she knew he was in town and her brow furrowed.
"He is an imposter using religion for political purposes", She said.
She was fresh off the boat.
i didn't really know the difference, until the dali llama came to town. I asked if she knew he was in town and her brow furrowed.
"He is an imposter using religion for political purposes", She said.
She was fresh off the boat.
Again, for some it is. For others, not.
Thinking you can wrap it into a bumper sticker shows a lack of curiosity and understanding not wisdom.
Either way, the fat and happy Buddha is a product of Chinese Buddhism, not my style and not the same thing as Siddhartha Gautama...
I honestly couldn't care much less about it, other than it really isn't a "religious" thing to rub the belly of Buddha. Not even to Chinese Buddhists... It's as religious, and the same thing as, a fortune cookie.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Well nyeah. Again. For some it is. I can keep repeating my equally true side in a snippy manner too, and pretend Im somehow superior. Go damo, you and your unending supply of unwarranted sense of self adulation.
Cool 'nuff.
You have some weird inability to learn things if you feel like somebody is "feeling superior", I think it is a symptom of an inferiority complex. I am sorry if teaching people about differences in other people's beliefs makes you feel like I feel somehow "superior" to you.
So be it. Accuracy is important when speaking of such things, generalities can cause issues.
No matter if people use Buddhism as a religion, Buddha is not a god. Not in any sect of Buddhism that I know of.
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
Buddha doesn't have to be a god for buddhism to be a religion. Don;t be sillly.
uscitizen
Villified User
It would have to be to be an "idol", however. Words mean things, keep up.