Well you're wrong then.

You can't speak for everyone reading on 2+2. I'd never heard of a tantric sex slave before a week ago and I'm sure a lot of other people on here haven't either.

No, this is an Exposé



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I read this thread completely now. It is a joke. Starting a thread in religion or politics then claiming you don't want it to be a debate thread is one of the dumbest things you can do. You wanted a one sided argument. You don't want to be told you are wrong. You should just start a blog and that way you can just delete the comments that offend you.

Confucianism might be worse than Buddhism when it comes down to male chauvinism though.

Some people over in a Chinese History forum commenting on why Confucianism is responsible for chauvinism in both China and North Korea:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/ind...inese-culture/

LOL..you can have an exchange of ideas without a debate.

Haven't you ever learned something from a conversation without having to prove anything?

But if you think you're going to force a debate then you need to change the name of the forum to Atheist Debate Forum.

Now now, this is the thread where you expose facts about buddhism. Please open a new one if you want to educate the world about confucianism.

No I am not wrong and I see what you did.

You said I can't speak for all of 2+2, but then you turned around and made 2+2 all about you. Clever.

Splendour, Christianity is hands down, without question, the most sexist religion on the planet. I'm not saying that Christianity created male chauvinism or anything like that, but until you can find another religion that blames the entire downfall of mankind on a woman, your religion wins this one. And women are portrayed as either horrible or worthless in other parts of the Bible too, like Lot's daughters getting him drunk to have incestuous sex with him, and don't forget the part where a father offered up his own daughter to an angry mob to be raped, and there's plenty more. You should seriously drop the chauvinism angle. You won't win.

Also, just to be clear, tantric practices, including tantric sex (which does not always involve a "slave", incidentally; most women involved in tantric sex are involved voluntarily) are part of Tibetan Buddhism only (and I'm not even sure that all sects of Tibetans practice it). Tantra has nothing to do with all of the other flavors of Buddhism.

You've found one practice in one type of Buddhism that you think is distasteful and attempted to make it an indictment of Buddhism as a whole. That's about as fair as if I said Pentacostals handle snakes and drink turpentine, therefore Christians are nutjobs.

You started this thread to try to cast Buddhism in a negative light. You had no intention of trying to learn anything. Your initial premise was basically: Some people think Buddhism is better than Christianity, but I don't think they know very much about Buddhism, so I'll use my master googling skills to see what kind of dirt I can dig up to make Buddhism look bad.

Given how much time you've spent on this endeavor and how little actual dirt you've managed to find, I'd say Buddhism has held up pretty well.

Hands down, huh?

Maybe you didn't notice that Judaism preceded Christianity.

Maybe you also didn't notice that man and woman were both made in the image of God.

So if you think God is going to smear half his image I think you should think again.

Imo you've mislabeled male chauvinism as Christianity though its obvious it's practiced outside of Christian countries although atheists with political agendas wouldn't like attention drawn to that fact because it undercuts their anti-Christian religion propaganda.

You can study up on the mammalian character trait of dominance. It's inborn so its been around longer than any religion I can think of.

You are trying to reason with someone who read the story of the plagues in exodus and thinks Pharaoh killed the first born sons. Seriously.

Kentucky Buddha,

Let me help you out a little.

Let me give you a clue, sugar. I have nothing in particular against Buddhists. Though I think Christianity has more to offer.

This thread really just demonstrates how flawed atheist thinking is on certain questions.

Atheists like to ask questions they can't even answer themselves but that doesn't stop them from asserting things that just ain't so.

LOL I like the story.

I was not tilted by her delusion. I just don't see the utility when she can't even keep straight the simple facts of the stories she believes. I obviously wish her well and hope she would pick a path that would not cause so much suffering, but she probably won't/can't. I think she actually believes she does not have a bone to pick and is not bearing false witness, in a thread that has no other purpose than to smear and propagate untruths. Sad.

June Campbell's story is a false witness on my part? C'mon.

Deorum do you remember our arguments over communism and atheism's definition?

I think that unbelief not being causal is deceptive. Because unbelief is not isolated in reality but only in argument. Unbelief can be linked to dominance and other psychic states and conditions to manipulate or activate it.

Basho said to his disciple: "When you have a staff, I will give it to you. If you have no staff, I will take it away from you."

Very funny.

Sounds like a quip on feminism.

Getsuan said to his students, "Keichu, the first wheel-maker in China, made two wheels having fifty spokes each. Suppose you took a wheel and removed the nave uniting the spokes. What would become of the wheel? If Keichu had done so, could he be called the master wheel-maker?"

100% wrong.

Why can't Buddhists get off the treadmill of reincarnation?

I can imagine the Buddha meeting Jesus Christ and his spiritual blindness being lifted.

The current world's tolerance will try to imply the Buddha and Jesus Christ were equal but no one is Jesus Christ's equal.

Imo Buddhism is the human mind doing the best it can until the answer to all the world's problems arrived: Jesus Christ who is The Light of the World.

A monk asked Seijo: `I understand that a Buddha who lived before recorded history sat in meditation for ten cycles of existence and could not realize the highest truth, and so could not become fully emancipated. Why was this so?'
Seijo replied: `Your question is self-explanatory.'

The monk asked: `Since the Buddha was meditating, why could he not fulfill Buddahood?'

Seijo said: `He was not a Buddha.'

A university student asked Gasan, "have you ever read the Christian Bible?"

"No, read it to me," said Gasan.

The student opened the Bible and read from St. Matthew: "And why take ye thought for rainment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They toil not, neither do they spin, and yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these... Take therefore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself."

Gasan said: "Whoever uttered those words I consider an enlightened man."

The student continued reading: "Ask and it shall be given to you, see and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened for you. For everyone that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened."

Gasan remarked: "That is excellent. Whoever said that is not far from Buddhahood."

Buddhists can pull themselves out of the cycles of rebirth - samsara and nirvana.

However, the Boddhisattva takes a vow not to leave the cycle of reincarnation in order to work for the enlightenment of all humanity.

agreed

you are indeed wrong, I am often wrong and am glad to learn it when I am, but there is a good reason you didn't cite a verse...because you can't

jeebus may have hated gays as you suggest but he was mum about it, and it would have been out of character

Well, let's just start with Romans 1, and go from there, shall we?

In Romans 1:26-31 twenty-three punishable sins are listed with homosexuality leading the list. Paul wrote, "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet" (Romans 1:26, 27). These verses are telling us that homosexuals suffer in their body and personality the inevitable consequences of their wrong doing. Notice that the behaviour of the homosexual is described as a "vile affection" (1:26). The Greek word translated "vile" (atimia) means filthy, dirty, evil, dishonourable. The word "affection" in Greek is pathos, used by the Greeks of either a good or bad desire. Here in the context of Romans it is used in a bad sense. The "vile affection" is a degrading passion, a shameful lust. Both the desire (lusting after) and the act of homosexuality are condemned in the Bible as sin.

1 Tim 1:10

1:8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 1:9 realizing that law 11 is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, 12 kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1:11 This 13 accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God 14 that was entrusted to me. 15

Jude 1:7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Then we have the plethora of references to fornication, which are sexual acts outside marriage. If you think that the
Bible condones gay marriage, then I really have nothing else to say to you, because in that case you are extremely
ignorant.