No, YOU read above. I stated that THIS time you did not use the WORD atheist ... you just used other words to say the same thing.Originally Posted by Buckrub
Bucky:Which definition does that fit?I (Jim) conclude that none of them (religions) are right ...
Agnostic,
i'd say.
Do you believe any of them are right?
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Your reading apprehension is really going downhill these days!
Thumper quote:I consider myself an Agnostic ... because I just DO NOT KNOW!
Jim! I'm lost here. That's what I said! I said that you don't believe ANY of the current religions, because you don't KNOW FOR A FACT which one, if any, is right. That's what I said about you. That's what you've always said.
Geez. Every time I get into a long conversation, that I THINK is just a calm discussion of this and that, on here........I get my tits in a wringer. For reasons I have no clue about.
Not now. I'm done. You believe whatever you want, or nothing, or whatever. Fine. I won't bother you again on this subject. I can't make myself understood. That's my fault. But I can't. So.......done.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Jimmy hates Jesus!
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
See, these conversations never turn out well. I think it is difficult or impossible for people with different points of view on religion to ever understand what the other fella is trying to say. I think that there are very different thought processes at work and communication is impossible. We simply do not understand how the other person can be so obtuse.
Bye the way, I love the message that Jesus gave us but not what man has done with it.
I've converted to Toyotaism.
BKB
Bucky, you're intelligent. You're educated. Why is it you think you always get your tit in a wringer? What you asked me is, "Do I believe ANY of them are right". You're trying to use a play on words to work me into a trap and you get frustrated when I don't fall for it. What you're looking for is a "yes" or "no" answer. I keep giving you an "I don't know" answer and you're not accepting of that. That's EXACTLY the reason you always refer to me as an atheist. You've told me many times, either I "believe in God" or I'm an atheist. There is no "middle of the road" with you and that's why you always failed to recognize "agnosticism". You want black & white, no gray is allowed.
The point that frustrates me is NOBODY knows ... all one can do is pick one and call himself a "believer". The problem I have with religion is that whenever someone "picks one" ... all others are automatically wrong.
If you want to pin me down to a belief ... I've "looked" at Buddhism for the last 42 years now. It's technically a religion ... but to me, it's really more a way of life than what we consider religion. How many "Holy Wars" have you heard of led by Buddhists? Your God preaches peace, loving and caring ... but you'd be hard-pressed to find a more historically violent religion. You claim to have studied them all and Christianity is the only one that makes sense ... the only one any rationally thinking human being would accept. Did you ever REALLY study Buddhism? I've experienced the culture first-hand and would be really hard-pressed to find a more agreeable religion to sign on to if I had to make a decision. BUT ... the jury is still out for me.
There are a few different Buddhist leanings. Like Christianity, all believe in God ... but we have who knows how many "churches" within the Christian faith? Sure, there are the main churches, but if you really dig deep ... there are probably hundreds ... each a bit different in their beliefs than the others. When it comes to Buddhism, I've been studying mostly Theravāda ... mostly because I've had the most personal exposure to it's teachings and practices. I'll tell you one thing though, no Buddhist monk has EVER tried to shove his beliefs down my throat. I wish I could say that about the Christian churches I've attended. Heck, I even dabbled in the Mormon church years ago and was literally locked in a room and they refused to let me leave until they finished trying to "convert" me. I was scared shitless as I was only 13 years old. Later in life, my closest buddy was Mormon and he was horrified to hear my story. I was older then and even gave some talks at his church ... a TOTALLY different atmosphere than what I'd experienced as a kid.
But I digress, back to Theravāda. This is just a very small slice ... and I'm more comfortable here than most anywhere else. At least Buddhists are "flexible" and have no problem keeping up with the changing times and "adjusting".
Theravāda promotes the concept of Vibhajjavada (Pali), literally "Teaching of Analysis." This doctrine says that insight must come from the aspirant's experience, application of knowledge, and critical reasoning. However, the scriptures of the Theravadin tradition also emphasize heeding the advice of the wise, considering such advice and evaluation of one's own experiences to be the two tests by which practices should be judged. I won't bore you with continuing on with practice and culminating ... just the learning phase gives you a taste.
Theravāda orthodoxy takes the seven stages of purification as its basic outline of the path to be followed.
The Theravāda Path starts with learning, to be followed by practice, culminating in the realization of Nirvana.
Learning
The Three Characteristics
Three marks of existence
Throughout the Pali-canon two characteristics of all conditioned phenomena and one characteristic of all dhammas are being mentioned. The Theravāda tradition has grouped them together. Insight into these three characteristics is the entry to the Buddhist path:
Anicca (impermanence): All conditioned phenomena are subject to change, including physical characteristics, qualities, assumptions, theories, knowledge, etc. Nothing is permanent, because, for something to be permanent, there has to be an unchanging cause behind it. Since all causes are recursively bound together, there can be no ultimate unchanging cause.
Dukkha (suffering): Craving causes suffering, since what is craved is transitory, changing, and perishing. The craving for impermanent things causes disappointment and sorrow. There is a tendency to label practically everything in the world, as either "good," "comfortable" or "satisfying;" or "bad", "uncomfortable," and "unsatisfying." Labeling things in terms of like and dislike creates suffering. If one succeeds in giving up the tendency to label things, and freeing himself from the instincts that drive him towards attaining what he himself labels collectively as "liking," he attains the ultimate freedom. The problem, the cause, the solution and the implementation, all of these are within oneself, not outside.
Anatta (not-self): all dhammas lack a fixed, unchanging 'essence'; there is no permanent, essential Self. A living being is a composite of the five aggregates (khandhas), which is the physical forms (rupa), feelings or sensations (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vinnana), none of which can be identified as one's Self. From the moment of conception, all entities (including all living beings) are subject to a process of continuous change. A practitioner should, on the other hand, develop and refine his or her mind to a state so as to see through this phenomenon. Truly understanding this counter-intuitive concept of Buddhism requires direct and personal experience. This is given in vipassana-practice, closely watching the continuous changes in the Five Aggregates.
I meant to come back to this but got caught up in talking to myself.
I have to say I got a chuckle out of that one!
And YOU Mr. Shit-disturber ... in a way, YOU started all of this ... years ago.
I promised myself I'd stay away from this. But one thing hits me, Jim:
Why is it you think you always get your tit in a wringer? What you asked me is, "Do I believe ANY of them are right". You're trying to use a play on words to work me into a trap and you get frustrated when I don't fall for it.
To me, that was an honest, simple question. Trap? I had no such intentions, I assure you. What trap? How would that question trap you? You made a statement, and I asked a logical question based on what you said. I made what I THOUGHT was a reasonable summary of what you've said you believe, and said repeatedly for years. At NO point did I call you anything, not an Atheist, nothing. In fact, Jim, I don't honestly remember every calling you an Atheist. If I did, and if that offends you, I'm sorry........my memory is clearly not what it used to be. But I seriously don't remember calling you that. I don't see a ton of difference in what you profess and atheism, to be honest, but I didn't 'label' you as anything. I didn't get frustrated that you won't answer. I made a summary of what you say you believe. Your argument is always "Well, WHICH one of the thousands is correct?" ... and I simply asked if you believed in any of them. From there, you pounced on me and claimed I called you an Atheist (as if that's some terrible label or something). I did not do that, and IMHO that skewed the whole discussion. It was at that point that I threw my hands up and gave up. It seems to me to be you that gets squirmy and upset every time this is brought up. You want to be 100% accepted as valid and right and good for what you believe. When that doesn't happen, it seems you get a bit angry but try to claim it's me that's at fault for that. I don't get that. But it doesn't matter. We can't talk politics, religion, baseball, football, soccer, or economics now. We can say "great turkey" or "Nice deer" or "good fish" and that's about it. Anything else just generates this whole skabob. Reading this thread from top to bottom, I just shake my head.
That's my take on the matter.
If my take on the matter is wrong, then it's wrong. And yes, it always seems to be me that is the recipient of the rancor. I don't know why, I simply try to talk and converse and 'chat' or whatever you want to call it. I see clearly that others say much the same thing, and they get to skate. Fine. I use this place to talk. A conversation.... a Campfire. Dang man.........this is an Internet Chat Site, isn't it? What do y'all want to talk about??? I talk about the things that are important to me. I don't shun important topics because someone might disagree with me. But I don't spew vitriol. Maybe I did at one point, maybe I've eaten all of my 'mad' and crapped out an old man. Beats me.........but nothing I've said here was meant to be mean in any way.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Well Bucky ... your memory is as short as my pecker. You may not remember, but I remember WELL the many, many times I've "tried" to correct you. I'll bet I've posted the definition of atheist and agnostic 20 times over the years ... just as I did tonight .... to TRY pointing out the difference. Blame it on age or whatever you want ... it's a fact. I have no doubt whatsoever because I was the subject of your labeling. It was ALWAYS frustrating and you basically told me I either "believe" or I don't. Plain old "not knowing" was an answer you would never accept. There IS such a thing as "middle of the road" and that's exactly where I walk. Johnboy is right, there is no way to communicate feelings on this medium ... in some discussions you HAVE to be face-to-face to read body language, etc.
You are an expert at acting like an innocent victim ... trying to win sympathy IMHO. Over the years I've grown to know you so well, I know what you're saying without you actually using the exact words. I don't want to drag anyone else into this, but most recently, I've seen it happen with Captain a dozen times or so. A while back I kept wondering what the friction was between you guys ... then I started seeing it. It's never been mentioned per se ... but sometimes the tension was so thick, you could cut it with a knife. I remember thinking, "Dang Bucky ... are you trying to get under his skin for some reason?" The next thing I'd witness is him unloading on you and you'd revert back to the same old, "What did I do/say?" You'd deny saying the things he'd accuse you of saying and you'd dance around the same old, "I never said those words" and claim to be a victim of "misunderstanding." Yet EVERY time it blew up ... I would have been watching from the sidelines thinking, "Whoa ... THIS isn't going to end well!" ... and it wouldn't.
You are an expert at choosing your words carefully so that in case the reaction escalates ... you can always come back and say, "I didn't say THAT!" Then you start quoting what you "DIDN'T say"! I know your track record ... you wouldn't believe how many times I've made a mental note of it.
You just posted a perfect example above. Please tell me what this means.
Ok, I must misunderstand how you REALLY feel, right? Now everyone here can say, "Dang, what's wrong with Thump? He's accusing poor old Bucky of saying things he didn't really say." You're getting the sympathy you want.At NO point did I call you anything, not an Atheist, nothing. In fact, Jim, I don't honestly remember every calling you an Atheist. If I did, and if that offends you, I'm sorry........my memory is clearly not what it used to be. But I seriously don't remember calling you that.
BUT ... here's your next sentence: (I call it a disclaimer for what you just finished saying)
Now, break that down for me. Or maybe I can help you with it. Like I said, you like to "play" with words. I take the above to mean ... "Jim, you say you're an agnostic, not an atheist, but (in MY book) there is no difference."I don't see a ton of difference in what you profess and atheism, to be honest, but I didn't 'label' you as anything.
Ok, in essence, in your own sneaky little way, you just "labeled" me as an atheist. But if I call you out on it, you can come back and say, "I never called you an athiest!" "Show me where I said that!"
Thumper, do you agnostic people still get to talk to God during sex?
For some reason "Oh Buddha" just don't sound right....
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
A Government that pays people to do nothing destorys their willingness to do anything!
Ha ha! Believe it or not Cappy ... I've heard just that before. I agree, it doesn't quite have the same "ring" to it! It's funny, but understandable .. when a Thai learns the language (English), they compare words ... the Thia word equivalent in English is ... ("whatever"). Of course, the correlation they make to God is Buddha. I knew a gal who, when you'd say something "astounding" in normal conversation, she'd many times reply with, "Oh my Buddha!" I don't care how many times I'd hear it ... I'd still crack up.
What'chu doin' up so early? Chasin' turkeys?
Yea, I hobbled my sorry ass in about a mile this morning in the rain. Figured is get in one last hunt before I go to the saw bones tomorrow and see what's going on with my leg...
Y'all had a enlightening discussion yesterday. Sorry I missed it. I could have really stirred the pot!
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
A Government that pays people to do nothing destorys their willingness to do anything!
We don't need no pot stirrin' ... move along, there's nothing to see here.
Keep us posted on that ol' leg-bone of yours.
Wow.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
You know the best thing about this thread? Can't none of y'all blame me for any SD work as I was AWOL whilst all this was going on!
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
A Government that pays people to do nothing destorys their willingness to do anything!
That's ok ... I dragged you into it anyway to make up for your absence.
My BUDDY Thump-a-nator
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
A Government that pays people to do nothing destorys their willingness to do anything!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote