Should I zero down God to Tsunami, cancer, pain and suffering... why do we approach God from Anthropocentric attitude? Is human being and his/her suffering and pain are the centre of world? go beyond human beings... be cosmocentric...HBs are part of the cosmic web.... He is not the epicentre of the cosmos..... so many planets, stars.... who knows what is there in?????? Please get rid of anthropocentric attitude... I honestly don't understand the cosmic system and its 'why' and 'how'...........
By the way, it is interesting to hear from people with other faith.
I just want to add that God doesn't just punish the act but our heart.
For me though, the most important thing is not just short life on earth but the real life after my death(because my soul+spirit live forever) and I am well preparing it as much as I can now so,not to regret in my death bed.
I believe that God created us and cares for us eternally not just when our body breathe.
I am glad God is all Powerful and all Loving. He said His name is The Lord Almighty(written in the bible).
God exists not just in the world but beyond the universe. He is spotless Righteous One so He judges the sinners to bring just to the poor, widows, orpans and weak. Whoever died alongside with the sinners by tragic will be saved and have eternal freedom/happyness are promised in Heaven but hell for sinners. For God, there is no lose because He know every indiviuals by name and no mistakes.:)
Maybe they should spell enlightenment with a small 'e' because there doesn't seem to be much of it here. Once one journeys into the Higher Planes and sees life from the greater view, then one can see the HIGH purpose of life here. Yes, GOD is All Powerful and All Loving. Then, why the suffering? Pain and suffering, a product of immaturity, misbehaving, and ill-deeds are to allow the individual to address their weaknesses, become responsible and move on to something far greater. i.e..to grow.
An all powerful God couldn't do this in an instant? He had to wait approx. 10 billion years for life to emerge on the speck of dust we call earth, and approx. 4 more billion years for it to evolve into homo sapiens, and then FINALLY, after humans were capable of dealing with concepts such as the meaning of existence, he gave each groups of humans DIFFERENT stories while telling them to kill each other if they believed something different!? What a waste of time.
@iaminfact It doesn't take SOUL billions of years to evolve to human state. By comparison SOULS evolve over a relatively short time, Think of the human lifespan as a microcosm of all life. The fetus (mineral state) to newborns (plant consciousness) toddlers to pre-teens (animal) teens (primative man), adults 20's to 60's (modern man to advance) 70's would be Enlightened Man. See everyday as one lifetime. SOULS start out as atoms and evolve to GOD REALIZED BEINGS. It's a process..it works.
As far as different religions go, look at this world like a University which has many different colleges..School of Medicine, Law, Engineering, Arts, Literature, Athletics etc. SOUL incarnates into various religions to learn from each of them. It takes lifetimes to develop the good from the religion while learning to discard the bad. Science can only speculate about how life evolved here. Civilization existed on this world for over 6 million years, and on other planets for far longer than that.
@moranplano Again based on no valid fact. You are making a lot of assumptions about the 'soul'.. If you mean civilization as the first human settlements and the first uses of rocks as tools then its approximately 2.6 million years ago. Agriculture began 10,000 years ago. Modern civilizations began 7000 years ago. These are based on archeological evidence and not mere assumptions. 6 million years is no where close to the real date.
@iaminfact Pt 1 Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science, it's been and is a great boon to man. But, scientists have only a few pieces of a billion piece puzzle, they do the best they can, but when more pieces come forth, they change their theories (constantly). Most scientists believe there was no Civilization of Atlantis because they couldn't find evidence, but Mystics (and myself) recall many lifetimes on Atlantis which existed for 27,000 years, then it went down (flood stories). Now..
@moranplano You say of scientists that "they change their theories (constantly)" as if that's a bad thing. New data requires re-analysis and reinvention. The major drawback to religion and magical thinking is that new data is typically ignored. It all comes down to God (or Gods) did it, it's all explainable by "past lives," or out of body experiences, or astrology, etc - don't you realize these things are all designed to keep us in the past? Move forward.
@RhunDraco Pt.1 Easy does it. I do think that scientists changing their theories when new evidence arrives is a good thing. I wish religions were as quick to adjust, but alas, they're not. But, too many atheists refer to science to disprove GOD. Atheists love to take on Fundamental Religion because so much of what they believe is pure superstition. But, MYSTICISM is based on one's OWN EXPERIENCES, which can be verified by other people. Scientists claim Atlantis didn't exist because there...
Pt. 2...was no evidence, but when one recalls a past life on Atlantis then there's a dispute. But, new evidence comes forth to show, that INDEED there was such a civilization. So, MYSTICS knew first and science is playing catch-up. Such things are not for "dwelling in the past", but to verify the SPIRITUAL PRESENT...our continued existence as SOUL. OBE's and NDE's go even further. Science attempts to dispel such things as Hallucinations, just show that science is still playing catch-up.
Pt. 2 an archaeologist named Richard Wingate has written two books of archaeological finds about colonies of the Atlantis...LOST OUTPOST OF THE ATLANTIS and ATLANTIS COLONY IN THE AMAZON. He's a scientist not a Mystic. Before Atlantis there was Lemuria, before that Hyperborea and Polara. Continents and civilizations come and go and history is lost. Only the Mystics can rise beyond Time and see it all. Edgar Cayce has books on Past Lives and Atlantis. SOUL is ETERNAL, you HAVE lived before.
I think the way that you explain that in Christianity, and maybe I've read too my Philip K. Dick novels, but there's this concept of the logos. God is the logos, and the logos is the ordering of the universe, and in the perfect ordering of the universe there is suffering and free will. We have to remember that god's justice is not man's justice. Man's justice is "no suffering," and this is not god's justice. I am Buddhist though.
typical ignorant athiest question "why is there suffering"
its like asking god "why dont you come down here and save these waves from crashing upon the jagged rocks" because waves in reality are processes of the ocean and waves seizing to exist as that form does not mean they seize to exist and suffering is only known in comparison to pleasure so if you want to remove suffering you have to remove pleasure......... atheists are just people who THINK they are smart.
@topbluffa1 So you agree no God is part of reality? And saying you need suffering to have pleasure when your god is supposed to be all powerful is just plain stupid. Guess we found a limit to his power there....
Atheists are actually shown to be on average more intelligent than any other belief based group so no, we don't think we are smarter, the difference is that we actually THINK.
you have failed to grasp the fact that suffering only exists in [comparison with pleasure. and i didn't say "no God is part of reality" quite the opposite god is absolute reality.
so why are you making the unscientific assumption that your a individual that has only existed since your birth and will seize to exist after your death despite what physics says (conservation law) your dumb im sorry.
@topbluffa1 After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't and there is not a single shred of evidence to support the contrary so yes, my assumption is in great shape scientifically. And just LOL at calling people dumb and making several basic grammar mistakes at the same time, even in the same sentence. Your kind of ignorance will never cease to exist I guess.
rofl at you....... "After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't and there is not a single shred of evidence" you still haven't told me why your making assumption that the totality of you is this form. Just as you took on your current form and took on conciousness you will again its a fact.
and grammar doesn't show intelligence especially in the Youtube comments section.
@topbluffa1 The person making the positive claim has to provide the evidence to support it. It seems to me you are making the claim that we have a soul, in which case it is your burden of proof. Provide the evidence of a soul, please.
@KingLe If you want proof of SOUL, then you must first realize that one does not HAVE a SOUL, rather, we ARE SOUL, we have bodies and minds. Try this technique. First sit quietly and focus gently on the screen of the mind, while chanting the words HU or AUM (for 10 min.) and imagine rising beyond the physical body. Do this before going to sleep. I did years ago, and found myself sailing in SOUL form (not dreaming) over a beautiful landscape. It is SOUL that keeps being reborn and learning.
not just your molecules but your EVERYTHING Mass/Energy therefore therefore unless the thing that you consider yourself to be doesn't really exist (which it doesn't im guessing you think You are your personality/memories btw which would mean if you got amnesia you would no longer be yourself? as you dont think you are your "molecules") then the law of conservation of energy proves that whatever YOU are cannot seize to exist and will take many forms and lead a infinite amount of lives
@topbluffa1 Did he say that? No. He said "After death we seize(*cease) to exist in this form..."
The meaning of You/Me/I is a strange thing indeed, and I would think that it would be something along the lines of your own mind and self-awareness. If you were to suffer amnesia then yes, the 'You' that was before would no longer be, it would be a new 'You'.
"1 After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't "
so tell me who is this "we" who "wont" exist and will break the law of conservation and is not made out of energy/mass thus breaking the law of E=mc2 tell me who you are?
@topbluffa1 Breaking the law of energy equals mass times the speed of light-squared(E=mc2)? What? How does the mass-energy equivalence factor into that?
you are mortal because you have chose to make the assumption that you are this temporary form and its memories instead of the form and memories being processes of the real you.
@serialced no consideration that there might be a soul? the very nature of the arguments about the soul is that there CANNOT, can never be scientific evidence for an afterlife or soul. Science's only realm it can measure is that of the physical, the supernatural it can put no measuring stick to. It would be impossible.
@topbluffa1 epic troll dude... your only mistake was that your comments were TOO stupid. no one could actually believe that nonsensical dribble you were spewing. the fact that you purposely had all of those grammatical and spelling errors only made it that much more obvious. stop pretending to be an idiot. it isn't funny. waves are clearly not conscious beings capable of suffering. it is spelled "cease". clearly an all powerful being could create a world with no suffering. you disgust me.
@topbluffa1 probably the worst metaphor i've ever seen in my life... you're talking about a process (the need for suffering so that one is able to experience pleasure) that, if god existed would be completely irreverent and useless. if god was all powerful he could create a world that everyone walked around in euphoria. but he doesn't.. because he/it doesn't exist. why give people free will and test their faith if u dictate/control and foresee the inevitable outcome?
I am a Gnostic Christian but have a deep respect for Buddhism, I even meditate. In fact my teacher became a Zen. We believe life is like a computer program created to test each one of us. To test, there must be evil and suffering. Those that fail would be deleted at death (no hell). Those that pass will become one with God. Recently, I have found flaws in my beleifs but I still believe in a creator. Would it be possible for me to be a Buddhist and still believe in a Loving God?
@astrofrk yes of course, the true buddha teaching is lead to brahman(god), but the concept of god in buddhism is not like christianity
this monk ajahn brahm know nothing about buddhism, he is ignorant, spread false information about buddhism, he has expelled from thailand!!!! this the country ordained him as monk!!!
if you have any question about buddhism feel free to ask me, I have experience on buddhism
@dhammmaraja Thank you. I grew up Penticostal and became a Gnostic Christian in May of 2010. I am still very spiritual but am learning for myself what is true for me. For a Gnostic Christian, God is above understanding except through the Logos and Sophia (Spirit of Jesus and the Holy Spirit mother). Our beliefs are more tolerant and closer to what you believe than mainstream Christianity. I'm not saying I will ever be a Buddhist, I don't know and will never know till I Iearn more.
@dhammmaraja (Part 2) This would require direct emails or calls (If you live in the USA). The Mahayana Buddhism sounds closest to my beliefs though I am somewhat ignorant of what that means. I believe that any explanation of God by humans is flawed because humans are imperfect. Still, I cannot deny the existance and form of worship of the Theos/Brahman. Gnostic Christians differ from mainstream Christians on thier concept of God. I am a Western Valentinian Gnostic Christian, to be precise.
@astrofrk I don't know what is your information about buddhism, but theravada buddhism is more near to the true teaching than mahayana
I am theravada, I study pali tipitaka(holy buddhist book), in buddhism the god is not control the universe like in christianity, and the buddha did not worship god, also there is many impermanent gods in buddhism, which also not like christianity.
I am not in USA, if you have any question ask me on my channel
In addition, as "more acceptable" as Buddhists may be (under my eyes) for they never led millions to kill others for Buddha (as far as I know) & because they seem peaceful (too peaceful -LOL). The issue being that I object groups of people wearing symbols (robes) to demonstrate they are part of a sect, which follows the teachings of a "higher being" (in this case "Gautama"), as I could not tolerate being around fanatics who follow an entity called "the awakened one"-LOL-Quite Scary actually
@AugustusAurelianus1 I understand where you're coming from but I have no problems with them whatsoever and even secretly admire a lot of what they do and try to achieve. The only drawback (and reason for the robes) is that they strip themselves of any identity(even their names) and as a consequence, they all look the same. Gautama is not really some higher being in the way we see it, its a being/person that has reached absolute enlightenment. They don't follow it, they want to reach that state.
> groups of people wearing symbols (robes) to demonstrate they are part of a sect
To my knowledge, that is not at all the purpose of the robes, but instead it is to not have objects that you cling to emotionally. A robe should be just the piece of cloth that it is, otherwise you're doing it wrong.
> a "higher being"
The thing that is "higher" about the Buddha is that he managed to reach a state of mind in which he didn't get annoyed by the crap life threw at him.
@AugustusAurelianus1 See I'm going to have to disagree slightly here. They're completely acceptable in my opinion as an Atheist. The only reason is that I don't mind what anyone believes as long as it doesn't start stepping on the toes of others (ie trying to deny rights, change the law to favor them, starting wars, discriminating against x or y, etc). Buddhism does non of these things so while I don't find it to be accurate by any means I at least appreciate that it sticks to it's own space.
@AugustusAurelianus1 Notice in the video where he said ordinary person. That means Gautama too. While I definitely admit many buddhists are a little(if not a lot) religious, that is a personal thing. I see it as a cultural and philosophical(though experiential rather than intellectual) group. I wouldn't consider myself a buddhist, but buddhists are experts on the mind and on meditation. And pretty cool people in general. People who are awake to life are more fun than those who live in their head
Great upload! I must say that he does have a point, explaining there cannot be a god all powerful that is all kindness, etc. Since I am fully convinced that there is no dinivity whatsoever, as there is no such a thing as an omnipontent creature who created all and knows all, the narrator point, as well made as it may have been, is simply IRRELEVANT -it is like trying to explain "why there is no matter without an atomic structure", or "why (on our planet) water must boil at 100C at sea level"LOL
@AugustusAurelianus1 In what way would you call the point he is making irrelevant? He is trying to explain what the Buddhist view, or stance if you will, is on theism ;-)
He refers to a quote that has been attributed to both Epicurus and David Hume:
I know it's obvious for people who know this, but it can educate people who don't and want to learn or for people who just want to hear it from a real Buddhist ;-)
@AugustusAurelianus1 - I'm terribly sorry, my good friend - I was not truly yelling... I have the bad habit of overusing capital letters to stress a point! Apologies - I love the video!
Should I zero down God to Tsunami, cancer, pain and suffering... why do we approach God from Anthropocentric attitude? Is human being and his/her suffering and pain are the centre of world? go beyond human beings... be cosmocentric...HBs are part of the cosmic web.... He is not the epicentre of the cosmos..... so many planets, stars.... who knows what is there in?????? Please get rid of anthropocentric attitude... I honestly don't understand the cosmic system and its 'why' and 'how'...........
getedwinsj 4 days ago
By the way, it is interesting to hear from people with other faith.
I just want to add that God doesn't just punish the act but our heart.
For me though, the most important thing is not just short life on earth but the real life after my death(because my soul+spirit live forever) and I am well preparing it as much as I can now so,not to regret in my death bed.
I believe that God created us and cares for us eternally not just when our body breathe.
Watch: Heaven/Hell experience on You tube
mayimham 1 week ago
I am glad God is all Powerful and all Loving. He said His name is The Lord Almighty(written in the bible).
God exists not just in the world but beyond the universe. He is spotless Righteous One so He judges the sinners to bring just to the poor, widows, orpans and weak. Whoever died alongside with the sinners by tragic will be saved and have eternal freedom/happyness are promised in Heaven but hell for sinners. For God, there is no lose because He know every indiviuals by name and no mistakes.:)
mayimham 1 week ago
Finally a sensible religious person.
chriscolferrocks 2 weeks ago
alabado sea el buda
supercappuccino 1 month ago
Atheism Rocks!!!!!!
darklord2314 2 months ago
Maybe they should spell enlightenment with a small 'e' because there doesn't seem to be much of it here. Once one journeys into the Higher Planes and sees life from the greater view, then one can see the HIGH purpose of life here. Yes, GOD is All Powerful and All Loving. Then, why the suffering? Pain and suffering, a product of immaturity, misbehaving, and ill-deeds are to allow the individual to address their weaknesses, become responsible and move on to something far greater. i.e..to grow.
moranplano 2 months ago
An all powerful God couldn't do this in an instant? He had to wait approx. 10 billion years for life to emerge on the speck of dust we call earth, and approx. 4 more billion years for it to evolve into homo sapiens, and then FINALLY, after humans were capable of dealing with concepts such as the meaning of existence, he gave each groups of humans DIFFERENT stories while telling them to kill each other if they believed something different!? What a waste of time.
iaminfact 1 month ago
@iaminfact It doesn't take SOUL billions of years to evolve to human state. By comparison SOULS evolve over a relatively short time, Think of the human lifespan as a microcosm of all life. The fetus (mineral state) to newborns (plant consciousness) toddlers to pre-teens (animal) teens (primative man), adults 20's to 60's (modern man to advance) 70's would be Enlightened Man. See everyday as one lifetime. SOULS start out as atoms and evolve to GOD REALIZED BEINGS. It's a process..it works.
moranplano 1 month ago
As far as different religions go, look at this world like a University which has many different colleges..School of Medicine, Law, Engineering, Arts, Literature, Athletics etc. SOUL incarnates into various religions to learn from each of them. It takes lifetimes to develop the good from the religion while learning to discard the bad. Science can only speculate about how life evolved here. Civilization existed on this world for over 6 million years, and on other planets for far longer than that.
moranplano 1 month ago
@moranplano Again based on no valid fact. You are making a lot of assumptions about the 'soul'.. If you mean civilization as the first human settlements and the first uses of rocks as tools then its approximately 2.6 million years ago. Agriculture began 10,000 years ago. Modern civilizations began 7000 years ago. These are based on archeological evidence and not mere assumptions. 6 million years is no where close to the real date.
iaminfact 1 month ago
@iaminfact Pt 1 Don't get me wrong, I'm not against science, it's been and is a great boon to man. But, scientists have only a few pieces of a billion piece puzzle, they do the best they can, but when more pieces come forth, they change their theories (constantly). Most scientists believe there was no Civilization of Atlantis because they couldn't find evidence, but Mystics (and myself) recall many lifetimes on Atlantis which existed for 27,000 years, then it went down (flood stories). Now..
moranplano 1 month ago
@moranplano You say of scientists that "they change their theories (constantly)" as if that's a bad thing. New data requires re-analysis and reinvention. The major drawback to religion and magical thinking is that new data is typically ignored. It all comes down to God (or Gods) did it, it's all explainable by "past lives," or out of body experiences, or astrology, etc - don't you realize these things are all designed to keep us in the past? Move forward.
RhunDraco 1 week ago
@RhunDraco Pt.1 Easy does it. I do think that scientists changing their theories when new evidence arrives is a good thing. I wish religions were as quick to adjust, but alas, they're not. But, too many atheists refer to science to disprove GOD. Atheists love to take on Fundamental Religion because so much of what they believe is pure superstition. But, MYSTICISM is based on one's OWN EXPERIENCES, which can be verified by other people. Scientists claim Atlantis didn't exist because there...
moranplano 1 week ago
Pt. 2...was no evidence, but when one recalls a past life on Atlantis then there's a dispute. But, new evidence comes forth to show, that INDEED there was such a civilization. So, MYSTICS knew first and science is playing catch-up. Such things are not for "dwelling in the past", but to verify the SPIRITUAL PRESENT...our continued existence as SOUL. OBE's and NDE's go even further. Science attempts to dispel such things as Hallucinations, just show that science is still playing catch-up.
moranplano 1 week ago
Pt. 2 an archaeologist named Richard Wingate has written two books of archaeological finds about colonies of the Atlantis...LOST OUTPOST OF THE ATLANTIS and ATLANTIS COLONY IN THE AMAZON. He's a scientist not a Mystic. Before Atlantis there was Lemuria, before that Hyperborea and Polara. Continents and civilizations come and go and history is lost. Only the Mystics can rise beyond Time and see it all. Edgar Cayce has books on Past Lives and Atlantis. SOUL is ETERNAL, you HAVE lived before.
moranplano 1 month ago
I think the way that you explain that in Christianity, and maybe I've read too my Philip K. Dick novels, but there's this concept of the logos. God is the logos, and the logos is the ordering of the universe, and in the perfect ordering of the universe there is suffering and free will. We have to remember that god's justice is not man's justice. Man's justice is "no suffering," and this is not god's justice. I am Buddhist though.
blueantipole 2 months ago
typical ignorant athiest question "why is there suffering"
its like asking god "why dont you come down here and save these waves from crashing upon the jagged rocks" because waves in reality are processes of the ocean and waves seizing to exist as that form does not mean they seize to exist and suffering is only known in comparison to pleasure so if you want to remove suffering you have to remove pleasure......... atheists are just people who THINK they are smart.
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@topbluffa1 So you agree no God is part of reality? And saying you need suffering to have pleasure when your god is supposed to be all powerful is just plain stupid. Guess we found a limit to his power there....
Atheists are actually shown to be on average more intelligent than any other belief based group so no, we don't think we are smarter, the difference is that we actually THINK.
serialced 4 months ago 11
@serialced
you have failed to grasp the fact that suffering only exists in [comparison with pleasure. and i didn't say "no God is part of reality" quite the opposite god is absolute reality.
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@serialced
so why are you making the unscientific assumption that your a individual that has only existed since your birth and will seize to exist after your death despite what physics says (conservation law) your dumb im sorry.
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@topbluffa1 After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't and there is not a single shred of evidence to support the contrary so yes, my assumption is in great shape scientifically. And just LOL at calling people dumb and making several basic grammar mistakes at the same time, even in the same sentence. Your kind of ignorance will never cease to exist I guess.
serialced 4 months ago 6
@serialced
rofl at you....... "After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't and there is not a single shred of evidence" you still haven't told me why your making assumption that the totality of you is this form. Just as you took on your current form and took on conciousness you will again its a fact.
and grammar doesn't show intelligence especially in the Youtube comments section.
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@topbluffa1 The person making the positive claim has to provide the evidence to support it. It seems to me you are making the claim that we have a soul, in which case it is your burden of proof. Provide the evidence of a soul, please.
KingLeonidaz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from serialced
@KingLe If you want proof of SOUL, then you must first realize that one does not HAVE a SOUL, rather, we ARE SOUL, we have bodies and minds. Try this technique. First sit quietly and focus gently on the screen of the mind, while chanting the words HU or AUM (for 10 min.) and imagine rising beyond the physical body. Do this before going to sleep. I did years ago, and found myself sailing in SOUL form (not dreaming) over a beautiful landscape. It is SOUL that keeps being reborn and learning.
moranplano 2 months ago
@serialc
not just your molecules but your EVERYTHING Mass/Energy therefore therefore unless the thing that you consider yourself to be doesn't really exist (which it doesn't im guessing you think You are your personality/memories btw which would mean if you got amnesia you would no longer be yourself? as you dont think you are your "molecules") then the law of conservation of energy proves that whatever YOU are cannot seize to exist and will take many forms and lead a infinite amount of lives
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@topbluffa1 Did he say that? No. He said "After death we seize(*cease) to exist in this form..."
The meaning of You/Me/I is a strange thing indeed, and I would think that it would be something along the lines of your own mind and self-awareness. If you were to suffer amnesia then yes, the 'You' that was before would no longer be, it would be a new 'You'.
KingLeonidaz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from serialced
@serialced
"1 After death we seize to exist in this form yes. Our molecules will go on to live forever but we won't "
so tell me who is this "we" who "wont" exist and will break the law of conservation and is not made out of energy/mass thus breaking the law of E=mc2 tell me who you are?
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@topbluffa1 Breaking the law of energy equals mass times the speed of light-squared(E=mc2)? What? How does the mass-energy equivalence factor into that?
KingLeonidaz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from serialced
@serialced
you are mortal because you have chose to make the assumption that you are this temporary form and its memories instead of the form and memories being processes of the real you.
topbluffa1 4 months ago
@serialced no consideration that there might be a soul? the very nature of the arguments about the soul is that there CANNOT, can never be scientific evidence for an afterlife or soul. Science's only realm it can measure is that of the physical, the supernatural it can put no measuring stick to. It would be impossible.
superclaydude 1 month ago in playlist More videos from serialced
@topbluffa1 epic troll dude... your only mistake was that your comments were TOO stupid. no one could actually believe that nonsensical dribble you were spewing. the fact that you purposely had all of those grammatical and spelling errors only made it that much more obvious. stop pretending to be an idiot. it isn't funny. waves are clearly not conscious beings capable of suffering. it is spelled "cease". clearly an all powerful being could create a world with no suffering. you disgust me.
ilshockll 3 months ago
@ilshockll
"waves are clearly not conscious beings capable of suffering" you call me stupid and you dont even understand what a metaphor is?
i explained why suffering exists but your brain cant grasp metaphors so my explanation is lost on you.
topbluffa1 3 months ago
@topbluffa1 probably the worst metaphor i've ever seen in my life... you're talking about a process (the need for suffering so that one is able to experience pleasure) that, if god existed would be completely irreverent and useless. if god was all powerful he could create a world that everyone walked around in euphoria. but he doesn't.. because he/it doesn't exist. why give people free will and test their faith if u dictate/control and foresee the inevitable outcome?
ilshockll 3 months ago
@serialced
no god is reality viewed as a whole instead of this abstract objectified reality you have created for yourself via your imperfect senses.
topbluffa1 2 weeks ago
@topbluffa1 you. are. an. idiot.
danathefunkiest1 2 weeks ago
@danathefunkiest1
great debating skills you have and the points you raise are impossible to ignore......
HA.
topbluffa1 2 weeks ago
haha, that's so true.
ModDangFc 5 months ago
This dumbass needs to buy some clothes that aren't falling off.
tkotomy 5 months ago
My definition of spirituality: one's connectedness with and compassion for all life.
Rina Deych, RN
Vegan Nurse
Spiritual Atheist
rrrina 6 months ago
I am a Gnostic Christian but have a deep respect for Buddhism, I even meditate. In fact my teacher became a Zen. We believe life is like a computer program created to test each one of us. To test, there must be evil and suffering. Those that fail would be deleted at death (no hell). Those that pass will become one with God. Recently, I have found flaws in my beleifs but I still believe in a creator. Would it be possible for me to be a Buddhist and still believe in a Loving God?
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk yes of course, the true buddha teaching is lead to brahman(god), but the concept of god in buddhism is not like christianity
this monk ajahn brahm know nothing about buddhism, he is ignorant, spread false information about buddhism, he has expelled from thailand!!!! this the country ordained him as monk!!!
if you have any question about buddhism feel free to ask me, I have experience on buddhism
dhammmaraja 6 months ago
@dhammmaraja Thank you. I grew up Penticostal and became a Gnostic Christian in May of 2010. I am still very spiritual but am learning for myself what is true for me. For a Gnostic Christian, God is above understanding except through the Logos and Sophia (Spirit of Jesus and the Holy Spirit mother). Our beliefs are more tolerant and closer to what you believe than mainstream Christianity. I'm not saying I will ever be a Buddhist, I don't know and will never know till I Iearn more.
astrofrk 6 months ago
Comment removed
astrofrk 6 months ago
@dhammmaraja (Part 2) This would require direct emails or calls (If you live in the USA). The Mahayana Buddhism sounds closest to my beliefs though I am somewhat ignorant of what that means. I believe that any explanation of God by humans is flawed because humans are imperfect. Still, I cannot deny the existance and form of worship of the Theos/Brahman. Gnostic Christians differ from mainstream Christians on thier concept of God. I am a Western Valentinian Gnostic Christian, to be precise.
astrofrk 6 months ago
@astrofrk I don't know what is your information about buddhism, but theravada buddhism is more near to the true teaching than mahayana
I am theravada, I study pali tipitaka(holy buddhist book), in buddhism the god is not control the universe like in christianity, and the buddha did not worship god, also there is many impermanent gods in buddhism, which also not like christianity.
I am not in USA, if you have any question ask me on my channel
dhammmaraja 6 months ago
@dhammmaraja
Please do your homework my friend
sineath3 5 months ago
@sineath3 I am not speak about something I don't know, I know buddhism very well, and through discussion, I convience many people about true buddhism
dhammmaraja 5 months ago
A while ago I was staying at the Hanazono Kaikan in Kyoto, and I wondered why all the Buddhist monks there are so grumpy...
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
In addition, as "more acceptable" as Buddhists may be (under my eyes) for they never led millions to kill others for Buddha (as far as I know) & because they seem peaceful (too peaceful -LOL). The issue being that I object groups of people wearing symbols (robes) to demonstrate they are part of a sect, which follows the teachings of a "higher being" (in this case "Gautama"), as I could not tolerate being around fanatics who follow an entity called "the awakened one"-LOL-Quite Scary actually
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 I understand where you're coming from but I have no problems with them whatsoever and even secretly admire a lot of what they do and try to achieve. The only drawback (and reason for the robes) is that they strip themselves of any identity(even their names) and as a consequence, they all look the same. Gautama is not really some higher being in the way we see it, its a being/person that has reached absolute enlightenment. They don't follow it, they want to reach that state.
serialced 1 year ago 8
@AugustusAurelianus1
> groups of people wearing symbols (robes) to demonstrate they are part of a sect
To my knowledge, that is not at all the purpose of the robes, but instead it is to not have objects that you cling to emotionally. A robe should be just the piece of cloth that it is, otherwise you're doing it wrong.
> a "higher being"
The thing that is "higher" about the Buddha is that he managed to reach a state of mind in which he didn't get annoyed by the crap life threw at him.
garouHH 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 See I'm going to have to disagree slightly here. They're completely acceptable in my opinion as an Atheist. The only reason is that I don't mind what anyone believes as long as it doesn't start stepping on the toes of others (ie trying to deny rights, change the law to favor them, starting wars, discriminating against x or y, etc). Buddhism does non of these things so while I don't find it to be accurate by any means I at least appreciate that it sticks to it's own space.
DarkBunnyLord 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 Notice in the video where he said ordinary person. That means Gautama too. While I definitely admit many buddhists are a little(if not a lot) religious, that is a personal thing. I see it as a cultural and philosophical(though experiential rather than intellectual) group. I wouldn't consider myself a buddhist, but buddhists are experts on the mind and on meditation. And pretty cool people in general. People who are awake to life are more fun than those who live in their head
mattpolofka 6 months ago
Great upload! I must say that he does have a point, explaining there cannot be a god all powerful that is all kindness, etc. Since I am fully convinced that there is no dinivity whatsoever, as there is no such a thing as an omnipontent creature who created all and knows all, the narrator point, as well made as it may have been, is simply IRRELEVANT -it is like trying to explain "why there is no matter without an atomic structure", or "why (on our planet) water must boil at 100C at sea level"LOL
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 In what way would you call the point he is making irrelevant? He is trying to explain what the Buddhist view, or stance if you will, is on theism ;-)
He refers to a quote that has been attributed to both Epicurus and David Hume:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
serialced 1 year ago 4
@serialced - it's irrelevant, because it's OBVIOUS... THAT IS WHAT I MEANT
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 Ok ok, no need to yell ;-)
I know it's obvious for people who know this, but it can educate people who don't and want to learn or for people who just want to hear it from a real Buddhist ;-)
serialced 1 year ago
@AugustusAurelianus1 - I'm terribly sorry, my good friend - I was not truly yelling... I have the bad habit of overusing capital letters to stress a point! Apologies - I love the video!
AugustusAurelianus1 1 year ago