₦airaland Forum

Wikipedia is not reliable anybody is authorised to write anything on it,but the negroids features on the statues are Facts.

Wikipedia is pretty good. Not just anybody is authorised to write on it and it's constantly updated by people who have expert knowledge on the subject. If there's ever a question about authenticity or relevance, there's normally a disclaimer at the top of the page. But heck!!. If you Google "Shakya", you'll come up with thousands of pages that connect the Buddha to the Shakya clan.
There is a Sakya school of Buddhism but they're based in Tibet, were founded relatively recently in Buddhist terms and have no connection to Africa. Ironically, they got their name because the word "sakaya" means "pale" or "grey", chosen after describing the landscape where they lived.

You say the older statues have negroid features but that's not true. Look at the countries where those statues come from. They aren't from where Buddhism originated. They're from where it eventually spread to centuries later - the Far East. Even if one could say that erosion wasn't an issue, we can't say that they are the first statues of the Buddha or anywhere near the oldest.

And what about the ancient paintings of the Buddha? I've spent hours and hours looking around Buddhist Temples in India and Sri Lanka yet never have I seen a negroid Buddha.

Sorry. As much as I'd like to, I simply can't buy it.

Wow!! At last you actually wrote something all by yourself.
A pity it only amounted to a load of hot air.

Now. Would you like to ask those couple of questions as I suggested in my last post? You're complaining that nobody's answered them, so how about it?

Dude. Your argument rests on a mis-spelling.

Buddha was, "an Enlightened Master from the Sakya clan of Naga Race.

It was the Shakya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya

You don't found a statue of Buddha with strait hair.

No. When he's not wearing the woolly hat, he's depicted as bald!!!

What has been said about John 5:39 yet?

My interpretation, when taken with 5:40 is that it is an admonishment.
It's basically saying that the study of Scripture isn't the be all and end all. One has to look at the bigger picture as well.


Well. You did ask.

Not in one instance have I called anyone "stupid" no matter how much they don't agree with me. Not in one instance have I used expressions such as "fanatic", nor "rude, malicious, mendacious, attacker, accuser, fight-fight-fight". ,   what is all that for? Is that how I have been addressing them? Did I call anyone "crazy" or "ignorant"? Where did I refer to anyone as "selfish"? Why is it that the "truth be told" that others recommend, they cannot see these matters at all before seeking to justify these same things? Where have I ever referred to anyone as a "disgrace" to Christianity? Where have I ever tried to justify anything in this regard and in such manner?

Again, very misleading. Ever heard of the word "insinuate"?

You insinuate with nearly every post you make in reply to someone with an opposing view to yours. Being devious enough not to outright call someone a liar or an idiot, but leaving an independent reader with the impression they are, by means of pretty blatant insinuation, does not make you an innocent.

All accusations welcome. When you're done, please let me know.

Again. Does nothing for your defence.

I doubt the Romans would have gone through the trouble of documenting the trial and crucifixion of many common criminals unless they were very significant individuals.

That's the point, Huxley.
The Bible does not depict Christ as a "common criminal". He was a Jew who was condemned by other Jews and then executed by the Romans. If this was the case, he couldn't have been viewed as just a common criminal, but as an "Enemy of the Roman Empire". And if that was the case, there would most certainly have been documentation.
But as a common criminal, he wouldn't have been crucified anyway. He would probably have been thrown to the beasts, stoned by his accusors or hanged.

Do you really have to be accusative rather than reason with people? What justifies the habit of people accusing others with such language?

Off your high horse. It's very, very difficult to reason with you. Reasoning with someone who only wants their side to be heard, who preaches and discards every single point put to them is a waste of time. So you'll probably find yourself accused until you recognise that a debate has two sides.
It's also pretty silly of you to start flapping about people treating you badly when one only has to look back through this thread to see how you've addressed other people.

Church authorities, christians - what difference does that make? Are these two seperate bodies?

Yes. When one takes into account how many different churches there are and how many different factions of Christians, they are now seperate bodies. Not just two - many. They may all fit under the umbrella of Christianity but as so many of them pull in different directions, it's hard to see how they can all be classed as identical.

Maybe those who are very used to accuse others should take a moment and ask themselves why. Is that too hard for them to do?

I've pointed out why I accuse you. Would you like me to repeat why?

Your interpretation. Who failed Christians?

The power hungry, money grabbing charlatans who believed that control of the Christian Faith was more important than it's ideals.
You may call them "Christians". I call them the Church authorities.

Thanks. It has become the culture now, so I'm quite used to such.

Then maybe you should ask yourself "Why?".

I think it would not hurt to read simple statements and understand what I pointed out. Christians are not a different body from the Church. The Church is actually made up of Christians.

No. The Church doesn't exist any more. There are now thousands of different "churches" which represent different denominations of Christians. The Church ceased to exist soon after Christianity began when it morphed into the Catholic Church and it's many offshoots, all believing different things and preaching different ideas. To claim that all these different people belong to one "Church" is misleading. They belong to many different factions within one religion.

Huxley.
Although I agree with you in the main, at least one point you've posted has been proven or pretty well accounted for. I've read that astronomers have matched an astronomical alignment of some sort with the supposed year of Jesus' birth for example.

But in general, you're absolutely correct and there is one thing you've mentioned that needs further clarification.

3) His death

- Accounts of his trials by the Sahandrins and Romans
- Accounts of this sentencing
- Accounts of this death

One should note that Jesus was executed by Crucifixion. This was a punishment that was only carried out on slaves, rebels, pirates and especially-despised enemies and criminals of the Roman Empire. It was not an execution method carried out on Jewish citizens. As Jesus was condemned by Jews (or so the Bible tells us), his death would have been that of stoning.
But as the Bible tells us that he was crucified, one can only assume that he was executed as an enemy of the Roman Empire. Not what the Bible tells us.
If this was the case, there would have been a record of the execution. The Romans were the documentors of their day - they would most certainly have recorded the crucifixion of Jesus. Not in just a single document, but in many. This plainly never occured - thus pointing to the fact that a Jesus as depicted in the Bible was never cruciified under Roman rule.

Don't be tedious to yourself. First, the Church is made up of Christians, so to say that "the church has failed christians" is a misnomer, for it is like saying that Christians have failed Christians. I wonder what sense that makes?

Yet again your condescending arrogance shines through.

The poster made a very simple statement and it's easy to see why he made it.
If the Church was so infallible, why did it fracture into so many denominations? Why are there now so many "Christian" churches?
What more do you want for absolute proof that "Christians have failed Christians".

Or do you mean (as I know you most certainly do) that only your church has not failed Christians?

The only other person that mentioned someone close to christ was the Jewish historian Josephus Flavius.

Correct. One sentence in a lifetime's worth of writing and that sentence has been exposed as a hoax that was added on long after Josephus' death.
Apart from that, there is absolutely nothing in any record, anywhere, that mentions Christ outside of the Bible.

@Lady. If you have any records that prove otherwise, I would be delighted to see them. But alas, wirinet is absolutely spot on with his assertion and I fear you can provide nothing.

we are talking about the negroids feature of the statue,this is hairs on the head NOT a cap.You can clearly see thick lips and frizzy, nappy, hair

No. You can clearly see that. I see the hat made out of Yak wool that the Buddha was famous for wearing.

It's not a case of "not wanting to see". It's a case of taking everything one knows about the Buddha and then weighing up the logic. I'm afraid your argument does not sit well in the logical department.

And what about the thousands upon thousands of other statues that do not show the Buddha to have "negroid features". Are we to disregard them simply because of the couple that you've shown? What about documented history? Does that go in the bin too? What about archeology? Anthropology? Sociology? The list goes on and on. The origin of Buddhism is probably one of the best understood of all religions/spiritual movements, yet you want it all thrown away on the assumption that a couple of statues look like Negroes?

No my friend. Logic is logic. It's not a case of seeing what one wants to see. It's a case of seeing the truth.

@wirinet. You are of course, correct. There were thousands of Buddhas. Which is why we always refer to Gautama Siddhartha Buddah as the Buddha.

The British may or may not have lied about the Aryan conquest in India. That story doesnt really hold water, on scrutiny. And I thought it was in the vedic scriptures or something? When did it turn to a British story?

It doesn't hold water on scrutiny? Tell me, how did you "scrutinise" it? Not very well I fear.

Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_race#British_Raj

In India, under the British Empire, the British rulers also used the idea of a distinct Aryan race in order to ally British power with the Indian caste system. It was widely claimed that the Aryans were white people who had invaded India in ancient times,[8] subordinating the darker skinned native Dravidian peoples, who were pushed to the south. Thus the foundation of Hinduism was ascribed to northern invaders who had established themselves as the dominant castes, and who were supposed to have created the sophisticated Vedic texts. Much of these theories were simply conjecture fueled by European imperialism (see white man's burden). This styling of an "Aryan invasion" by British colonial fantasies of racial supremacy lies at the origin of the fact that all discussion of historical Indo-Aryan migrations or Aryan and Dravidian "races" remains highly controversial in India to this day, and does continue to affect political and religious debate. Some Dravidians, and supporters of the Dalit movement, most commonly Tamils, claim that the worship of Shiva is a distinct Dravidian religion going back to the Indus Civilization,[9] to be distinguished from Brahminical "Aryan" Hinduism. In contrast, the Indian nationalist Hindutva movement argues that no Aryan invasion or migration ever occurred, asserting that Vedic beliefs emerged from the Indus Valley Civilisation,[10] which pre-dated the supposed advent of the Indo-Aryans in India, and is identified as a likely candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture.

Some Indians were also influenced by the debate about the Aryan race. The Indian nationalist V. D. Savarkar believed in the theory that an "Aryan race" migrated to India,[11] but he didn't find much value in a racialized interpretation of the "Aryan race".[12] Some Indian nationalists supported the theory because it gave them the prestige of common descent with the ruling British class.

I'd say that holds water, wouldn't you?


By the way, a "black Buddha" means the stone they had to work with was black. It doesn't mean anything else. Come to London and look at the statues. There are many statues of British people cast in black rock or marble. Does this mean that they were Negro?

Horus. That photo shows the Buddhist cap and there's even the bobble on it. As for the nose? Are we also to assume that all negroes have their left nostril missing? Understand this, a statue is made out of rock. When it erodes, the first thing to go is the sharpness of the features.

Again I will refer you to the questions posted, if you cannot answer them simply move on to other things.

If you need to view the questions, see them here: from post #1,60,127,130 etc

Please get real. The questions posted? You opened this thread by copying and pasting from creationist websites and posing hundreds of questions. Most posters are happy with a couple of questions, but you opened up with near enough a whole page of quotations!!!  And look at the numbers you've given there - there's hundreds more!!! Do you honestly expect someone to answer every single question? I know I sure as s4it wouldn't. Half of them don't even warrant a reply because they're so stupid.

How about asking one or two so that people can answer? Pick some that make sense. Then you can reply. That's how debating works. And once that's done, you move onto another one or two - without making a dozen posts in a row of copy and paste in between so that you don't drown everyone in an avalanche of crap.

This is why I have to use their own evolutionists' heroes' quotations in answering some of their questions

Another reason why you should avoid just copying and pasting en masse: I've already shown you that some of those people are not evolutionists, they are creationists. I've also shown you how their work is taken out of context. Therefore your tactics are at best misleading, at worst lies.

So either you debate properly or stop whining and accept the ridicule you're so far deserving of.

Speaking in tongues is for those who are too stupid to speak in their own language.

How do you think I will be able to have a proper dialogue with you since you are still in denial and would not want to be confused with the facts because your mind is already made up, and would rather resort to personal attacks and equivocation to pump yourself up.

A proper dialogue? Since when have you tried to engage anyone in a proper dialogue in this thread? All you've done is post very questionable quotations from creationist websites.
What's your point? Anyone can visit those websites for themselves. Why just keep posting the same old crap over and over again without any of your own input to back them up?

Take a look at the quote about Caylor and "J". Are we honestly meant to take that seriously? An un-named "scientist" on a creationist website promoting creationism. Do you really call that evidence?

Do you call posting the words of pro-creationists who claim to once have been "scientists" as evidence?

you are still in denial and would not want to be confused with the facts because your mind is already made up

I'm in denial and my mind is made up? Yet you haven't answered a single question posed to you. You just go on posting creationist quotations time and time again. Do you understand how dumb that makes you look? I'm confused by the facts? Where have you given a single "fact"? You claim that Creationism is the way to go, yet you haven't supplied one single bit of evidence that it's the right way. All you've done is try to pick holes in Evolution theory (very badly I might add). If you're going to prove Creationism, you've got to back it up. You plain and simple haven't. Your ignorance regarding "facts" is utterly breath-taking. And then when caught in a total lie as you were with the "ardent evolutionist" claim, you just totally ignore it. Astounding!!

Honestly, do you know how to debate? Pick an issue and then discuss it? Can you do that?
I think not. You seem far too stupid and don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of how one goes about logically promoting a theory. Look through this thread that has now stretched to five pages. Look at how many posts you've made. Then look at how many of the words in those posts are your own. Probably less than 1%. Now I know most creationists are very shallow and unimaginitive but you really are a prime example of that ilk.

So stop complaining about other people "insulting" you. You've posted nothing that negates your being deserving of those insults.

Obviously, you ignored my previous post.

Go ahead. Post your crap.
When you're ready to debate properly, come back and try.

Again. Very, very misleading.

I'm not even going to bother checking to see if they're all evolutionists as you claim when clearly you've already lied at least once.

Some of those authors are arguing against creationism. When a person gives a theory, they present the opposing view first and then go onto their theory. All you've done is copy and paste from a website that gives the author presenting the opposing view and then totally ignores what his following theory is.
It's completely and utterly taken out of context.

Here's an example of taking something out of context, just as you have done:

"We, no doubt have to recognize with admiration this incredible strength of the Jews' preservation of their race".

Sounds like someone praising the Jewish people doesn't it? But it's completely taken out of context. Do you know why?
Because those words were spoken by Hitler.

You're just posting quote after quote taken out of context from creationist websites. You can't even put forward a good argument in your own words yourself. You have to use someone else's flawed argument.

There are many reasons to follow Him. Fear, love and reward are all good reasons.

Love is. But Fear and reward are good reasons?

No. Down that path you are only worshipping God because you want something out of it. And if you think long and hard enough about it, you'll realise that isn't worshipping God but something else. You're only pretending to worship God.

John 5:14: Jesus said unto him "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

He didn't say "You come to God through Fear or Reward". He said, "You come to God through Love".

Lmao!!
Dream in black and white.

It happens and here's why:
Historically, no one ever believed dreams were in black and white. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1950s and early 1960s that the question came to be debated. The cause? People were beginning to watch a lot of black and white television in those days, and this made their dreams, on occasion, mimic the black and white worlds that people were seeing on their TVs at night.
All people dream in color. The truth is that we only recently began to dream in black and white—after we saw, for the first time, what a "black and white" world would look like. Think about it. If you'd never seen black and white movies and photographs and TV shows, it would be pretty hard to imagine what a "black and white" world would look like. For example, if you lived in the 1850s, and if someone asked you whether you dreamed in color or black and white—the question wouldn't make sense. You'd ask them: "What on Earth do you mean by dreaming in black and white?" Because the only world we knew back then was in full living color.

Heh. No way.

Much of the President's main purpose is to present an acceptable face of the US Administration to the people. Bush was probably one of the worst ever at doing this. Therefore, I wouldn't classify him even as just a bad president - he's way worse than that. He's definitely up there with the worst ever.

I'd say your 65% is high. He gets around 20% from me. And most of that is purely because he was stupid enough to be a patsy and incompetent at being able to spin policy to the people.

Apart from colour, physical characteristics distinguish human races. Those cannot have evolved from climate.

Wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576599/race.html

There you go again, telling lies and using crap sources.

Ardent evolutionists such as:
Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), said: “The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column. It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved.”

Ariel Roth is a former director of the Geoscience Research Institute at the Seventh-day Adventist Loma Linda University, and served as editor of the creationist journal Origins for 23 years. Ardent evolutionist my butt.

The quotes by Norman and Meyr are also very deceptive. Why don't you post the sentences they wrote following those where they explain why?

I don't beleive that! if that were the case for 100% of the time then there would be no difference who is in the white house
But there was a clear difference between the presidency of clinton and his
Yet are there ( according to you theories ) not the same powers that be?

No. There was a difference between Clinton and Bush because they are from different political parties. They had different teams of advisors with different agendas. The same goes for Obama and Bush.
But compare Bush Junior's administration with Bush Senior's and you get the scenario you've put in your first sentence. Many of the advisors that were in the first Bush's administration held postions in Junior's. Take a look at their administrations policies and you'll see that they were pretty much identical. The same was true for the Reagan - Bush Senior administrations. The advisors generally stayed the same and the policies stayed the same.

The same goes for the Democrats. Clinton had guys on board from the Carter administration. Remember though, that there were 8 years of Reagan in between so the policy similarities weren't so obvious. They had to be a little different simply because times had changed.

Take a look at Obama's new team and you'll see that many of his guys have held advisory postions in both the Democrat and Republican parties. It illustrates my point. Don't get too depressed though, the reason why Obama is a ray of light (hopefully) is that he does seem to be one of those rare presidents who wants to make his own mark - hence his statement that he will decrease the power of lobbyists.

So yes. The President doesn't run the country or make the big policy decisions. The back-room boys do and they don't go away when there's a change of president. They're always around in some form or another. It's just the way that politics works.

Please consider this we did not become black - we were created Black!
The original man of creation Adam was Black and perfect.  He was set in the savanah, which today is called Africa.

The Bible tells us that Adam was created and then put in the Garden of Eden which is in Iraq/Mesopotamia. He would therefore have had an olive skin tone.

Science tells us a different story - the first men came from Africa and they would have had dark complexions.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe the Bible, in which case you believe that the first men were olive or you believe science, in which case the first men were black.

As much as one would like to claim that the Buddha was an African, it simply isn't true and one can't base an opinion on the website because it's very poorly written, riddled with errors and even tainted by racism.

Buddha was born in Lumbini and raised in the small kingdom or principality of Kapilvastu, both of which are in modern day Nepal.
His father was King Suddhodana, the chief of the Shakya nation (the website has conveniently left the letter "H" out of Shakya), one of several ancient tribes in the growing state of Kosala; Gautama was the family name. His mother, Queen Maha Maya (Māyādevī) and Suddhodana's wife, was a Koliyan princess. One thing that cannot be forgotten is that the ancient Indians were documentors. They kept very good records. There is no record of an African people either ruling over or inhabiting the area where Buddah was born and raised.

The Buddah would not have been white or black, but a mixture of Chinese and Indian.

The website given says some silly things:

It is clear therefore that Buddhism did not start in Japan nor China, yet it is professed and practiced by millions of devotees throughout Asia.

Nobody has ever claimed it began in Japan or China. It has always been claimed as starting in India.

There are absolutely no historical records that portray Buddha as Aryan or White.

No. But there are physical descriptions that point to him not being black.

Under the Black King Ashoka, the religion of this Negro God was spread throughout Europe

Buddha is not and never has been considered a god by Buddhists.

Over the centuries, there have been several recorded Buddhas like Gautama, Sakayanumi, and Siddhartha.

Gautama, Sakayanumi, and Siddhartha are all the same Buddah.

The website then goes onto to make questionable claims about Africans in Southern India which is totally irrelevant as Buddhism began in Northern India. It also makes what seems to be some racist claims about the whites and Aryanism that have no foundation in fact or anthropology. The theory regarding Aryan invaders being white is in fact propaganda that the British spread when they colonised India. It has no basis in fact and the author of the website is just perpetrating British lies. Quite ironic.

The claim about cornrows is very misleading. The photographs do not show cornrows. They show a Buddhist cap:

https://www.displaystatues.com/images/lgfibbuddha01551.jpg

The comparison with the Massai man is also misleading. In ancient India, men and women commonly wore ear plugs. Children’s ear lobes were pierced and a small clay cylinder was put in the holes. As the child grew, increasingly large cylinders were put in the lobes until they had stretched enough to accommodate plugs with diameters of up to 6 centimetres. Hundreds of these objects have been found by archaeologists and are displayed in some museums in India. The Buddah would have worn such ear plugs when he was a lay man and would have taken them off when he renounced the world, leaving his ear lobes elongated. Elongated ear-lobes are not the exclusive feature of the Massai.

Whoever made the website has absolutely no concept of the Buddah. One of the most important aspects of Buddhism and it's sacred writings is that the physical form of the Buddah is irrelevant. A follower should never, ever concentrate on the Buddah's physical form. The only way to know him is through the spiritual.
The website also continually states that Buddhism is a religion that started in Africa. This is wrong on two counts. First, Buddhism is not a religion. It is a way of life. No practitioner of Buddhism nor any serious scholar would ever refer to Buddhism as a "religion". Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that any African religion contained the main concepts of Buddhism. For example, there is no comparison with Nirvhana in any native African religion. Buddhist scripture points to the Buddha being raised as a Hindu, just as all his compatriots were, before he became Enlightened. This is backed up by the fact that there are many aspects of Hinduism contained within Buddhism.

Everybody dreams.

You just don't remember them.

Nothing passes without the president's approval NOTHING!!

The senate can vote but if the president uses his exercutive orders he can undo it.
Bush the great did that several times unfortunately most of the decisions which he took by using his exercutive orders
turned out to have negative effects and that is why even the republicans blame him.
( the war in Iraq was a typical situation where he told the senate the decision had been taken, and he issued exercutive orders to endorse it )

You're still missing the point.
He signed the papers put in front of him but was it his policy or was it handed to him?

Bush critics often point to him being a fool. If this was the case, would he be capable of creating policy? Doubtful.
He may have signed the executive papers to invade Iraq but you can almost guarantee that it wasn't his idea. That would have come from the money-men, lobbyists, Haliburton execs (Cheney) and the economists.

Like I said, he was a patsy. They put papers in front of him and he signed them.

You can't have him as an idiot and a political manipulator. He was one or the other. My money is on the former.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a staunch Obama supporter. But Bush was merely the Yes-man in the US administrator. The fact that the Yes-man held the position of president is why the guys who pulled the puppet's strings managed to do so much damage.

Finland is a little different, mazaje.
They were very, very late converts to Christianity.

In the UK and most of Western Europe, most parents still have thier children baptised of christened into the Christian faith.
But you've also got to realise that Europe isn't everything. North and South America are also Christian and in general are much more staunch.

Yet another ridiculous quote from that creationist website:

The Geologic column does not exist in nature. There is not one location on earth where you can take a spot and shovel, starting at the surface, dig straight down and find the rock layers in the "perfect evolutionary order"

The Geologic column does exist in nature but it's true that there is no perfect Geologic Column.
Why? The clue is in nature itself!!! It's not a vaccum. Not a sterile environment.
The very nature of nature is that it's always moulding the Earth!!! Wind erosion, water erosion, tectonic plate movement, etc. Nature itself dictates that no perfect Geologic Column can exist!!!

The above reason may be how an evolutionists sees it through his own spectacles, but a biblical creationists sees Noah's flood which happened about 4,500 years ago.

LMAO!!! Where is the flood signature for this universal deluge?
Pssst. There isn't one. Noah's story is a copy of an older Babylonian myth called the "Epic of Gilgamesh". It has it all in there - animals in two by twos, arks, rainbows, doves, mountains, sacrifices on landing, the lot.
And there actually is a signature for a localised flooding in the Euphrates valley when Gilgamesh was supposed to have taken place.

Noah's flood never happened. The Bible was compiled when the Hebrews were in exile in Babylon. They merely took the older myth, gave it a moral twist and took it for themselves.