₦airaland Forum

skydancer:
I thought Zen is a school of Chinese buddhism where meditation and other psychological stuff are thought. Why do you people take it as a subject or skill

Skydancer, you have thought wrong.

Hey Pastor! Wonderful Koan.

When I think of your request, Jackdaniel,
 Certain things come to a mind.
 The first is a vow not to preach,
 The second is the vow just to teach.

 So, do I say, Jackdaniel,
 I live to share Zen;
 Not an ideology or a doctrine,
 But the enriching breathe of the Dharma.

 So I pick up a cross and walk on,
 Stomping a foot in the ground.
 And while leaving huge footprints behind me,
 I devour the Fruit of the Tree.  

 But there is not Zen in mere words
 There is not Satori in not doing.
 In mere words is only death
 In death there is no Dharma.

 D'wanna know what it is?
 There is one, or two, I have found.
 If I say the camel is the mind
 Would it be understood to say why?

Or even, How?

jackdaniel:
buda => At least you can share the koans you know.

"I have passed 125 koans and still I feel like a donkey.
           And now I know I am a donkey."

Sure one can. Zen Koans

davidylan:
you seem to be confused as to what the bible has to say about love. We are to love our brethren but not be a part of their ecumenism all in the warped idea of "love".

Love means warning the lost about the dangers of facing eternity without Christ . . . it is not about pushing aside our "differences" and embracing ourselves. Love is about telling others about the love of Christ and His shed blood on calvary, not trying hard to not offend them by watering down the gospel.

biblical love means calling out heresy, not condoning it in the name of "we shld be one".

If that is all your God told you david, who am I to argue with you? All I can say is what my God told me, which is, "Don't just love those who are easy to love, buda, but moreso those who are most hard too". Its all I have to share. As to trying not to offend, me?

Chrisbenogor:
I really don't subscribe to that, this guy has supposedly said he was an atheist somewhere, now he is talking of our[b] faith [/b]

Talking of you faith? Sorry mate. I was not aware it belonged to you.

jackdaniel:
buda => Almost peed on my pants laughing . I am not a blessed teacher, abeg bros,  i am just a seeker of the truth like you all.

And i hope you share your Zen insights with us, cos we are at your lotus feet to learn. We should all learn from one another; share the light and dispel darkness from our soul, lives,families,nation and the earth.

" Let us all seek the truth as She seeks us " because " We are the Ones we have been waiting for "

Share Zen? Now that's a tough challenge, though I constantly do in just about every post. Like Kaballah, its a way of reasoning (or thinking), and most importantly doing. No different to Christianity until one gets bogged down in what Zen is not, and attempts to indoctrinate others. I guess its not a thing to preach, is the thing. Zen does advice the individual to seek their own Satori, after all.

Chrisbenogor:
@OP
Are you an atheist?

I am.

davidylan:
i'm absolutely sure. The bible is not about "why cant people just get on"?
The kingdom of God is not about simply "loving" the fellow man you can see . . .

the bible talks so much about christians being "hated" for the sake of the gospel. It talks of christians being persecuted for their faith. It takes about "coming out of her my people and be ye SEPARATE" . . .

And it says "love those who hate you", and "turn the other cheek if they slap you", david!

davidylan:
Sorry i find no such basis for your ecumenism in the bible.

Not even where it says "love more even those who hate you"?

Pastor AIO:
I've heard the sound of one hand clapping but I am yet to smell the sound of one Ear reading.

Perhaps you sniffing too hard? Try looking at it with one nostril Pastor

Chrisbenogor:
Do you ever post your own opinions?

Yes I do. Quite a lot, actually. Just google "buda atum", if you care to know.

As to my opinion on abortion, it is above my pay grade to tell others what they should do with their body. As for me, I would abort the child of my rapist. I would not like seeing the bastards face in the child I am meant to love, and nor will I take the chance that I might not hate it.

Should the baby resulting from a rape be aborted?
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry © Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2009

Rape is a horrible and traumatic event in the life of any woman who has suffered its indignity.  It is the forcible act of sexual intercourse against the will of a woman.  Should she become pregnant, not only must she bear the memory of the rape, but she also carries the child of the rapist.  The question, then, is whether or not a woman should abort the baby that is the result of a rape?  This is a very difficult question to answer.  After all, it is a highly emotional issue.  Of course, I am a man and cannot possibly relate nor understand what it would mean to be in the place of a woman whose body has been invaded in such a way.  I can only speak from what I know and what I believe about the sanctity of life that is derived from God's word.

In my opinion, a baby that is a product of rape should not be killed.  It is not the fault of the baby that it has been brought into the world.  Why should the life of the baby be sacrificed because of the indignity suffered against the woman?  Yes, I know rape is horrible and that it is wrong.  I know the woman has the right of self-protection and emotional security.  But I also know that love is greater than all these things, and few things on earth have greater love than a mother for her child.

I know some will strongly object and say that my attitude is callous and insensitive to the needs of the woman.  Indeed, a woman impregnated through rape has suffered greatly, and bearing the child would certainly be a reminder of the horrible incident.  The "father" would not support the child, and the mother would be left to raise the child on her own.  Without a doubt, the woman gets the raw end of the deal.

It is only natural, then, for a woman to want to protect herself physically, emotionally, and financially by removing from her very body that which has invaded her through rape.  I cannot blame a woman for desiring to justify an abortion intellectually and emotionally in this case.  But still, in spite of the great indignity against the woman, and in spite of the emotional and financial hardships she would bear in the future, must the child be required to pay for the sin of the rapist?  Is it right to kill the child who is not at fault?  Is it right to take the life of someone who has done nothing wrong?  In civilized nations, protection of the innocent is a primary concern.  In the hearts of mothers, love should win out.  Love that sacrifices and gives life, instead of taking it, should be the goal.  Just as Jesus loved us and sacrificed Himself for us so that we might have life, so too should the mother give life to the child.  Is it fair?  No.  It wasn't fair for Jesus to die for us either, but He did it anyway.  He showed us what true love really is.

For those who place no credence in God's word nor the sacrifice of Christ, it all comes down to the persons' values.  If a woman considers the life in her womb to have human nature, even though it is the product of rape, then she will be more likely to spare its life.  However, if she considers what is alive in her to be nothing more than an invasive parasite, then killing it would be easier to do.

In today's world, sterile medical terms are used to describe the life growing in the womb, thus making it easier to detach oneself emotionally.  "Embryo" and "fetus" are clinical words that do not carry emotional baggage.  Terms like "baby" and "child," however, do.  Which words do you use?

How can anyone not realize that what is alive in the womb is human in nature?  How can anyone so easily dismiss its life?
That is easy for you to say

Of course, while sitting here in the comfort of my office, it is easy for me to urge women to keep babies who are the products of rape.  After all, I don't have to carry the child, suffer the emotional trauma, or bear the financial burden.  This is true.  The closest I can come to experiencing their situation is to try and imagine what I would do if my wife were raped and impregnated.  Years ago, I decided that if it happened, I would want to raise the child as my own.  I dearly love children and could never simply want to get rid of it.  My wife feels the same way.

Jesus showed me His great love by sacrificing His life for me, a sinner.  I deserve to be judged harshly by Him, yet He is gracious and kind.  I too must be gracious and kind in response.  Therefore, I would keep any child given to me and raise him or her as my own, with all my love and dedication, by God's grace.

It is infectious, sky, isn't it. Many a time I find myself feeling I ought to get off forums before I turn into what I find most distasteful. But after so many years of failing, I am gradually learning to resist joining in gutter wallowing. And one day, I would be able to resist completely and just walk on by for real, I keep hoping.

jackdaniel:
Buda=> A great Zen master once said we should not leave footprints of evil in this world.

And my dad has a funny saying “It is easy to give a mad man a machete, but the hard part is retrieving it”.

And besides I have divulged so much. Remember once, when a zen master gave a lecture and said nothing, suddenly a bird sang and he declared that the lecture was over. I guess you know the effects of the koan and satori.

“The words are but letters to world, but the divine quickeneth understanding; the guardians of veil chooses who beholds the mysteries, when the divine permits; He who should see, shall see”.

Doth not wisdom cry and understanding put forth her voice?
Surely She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
Crying at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
Unto you, O people, she calls,  Proverbs 8

My God, Jack. You do know your Zen! Indeed even Sakyamuni, long before the First Patriarch came to the West, said:

"This that though many toils I've won
Enough! Why should I make I known,
By folk with lust and hate consumed.
Not this the Truth that can be grasped!
Against the stream of common thought,
Deep, subtle, difficult, delicate.
Unseen 'twill be by passion's slaves
Cloaked in the murk of Ignorance.

Indicating that they would not even understand if he tried to tell. But did he not meet a Great Brahma who said:

"As on a crag, on a crest of mountain standing,
A man might watch the people far below,
E'en so do thou, O Wisdom fair, ascending,
O Seer of all, the terraced heights of Truth,
Look down, from grief released, upon the nations
Sunken in grief, oppressed with birth and rage.

Arise, thou Hero! Conqueror in battle!
Thou freed from debt! Lord of the pilgrim band!
Walk the world o'er, and sublime and blessed Teacher Jackdaniel!
Teach us the Truth; there are they who will understand."

And so did the Buddha begin to teach the Dharma, which if he hadn't, would have left the world without Satori. The Koans are after all to aid the process.

davidylan:
Nice sounding words but simply ecumenical nonsense inspired by the devil. Sorry but that is the bible's stance.

buda is the devil, davidylan!

But are you certain that is not your own stance?

Jagoon:
Still waiting for answers

Je Jagoon You got to be patient know!

What is atheism?

The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no,’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’  Hence, atheism in the most basic terms means ‘no god.’  Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and/or the belief that there is no god.  By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God, that he is knowable, and that he is involved in the world.  Most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists, but simply non-theists.

I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system, while others say it is.  Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which description of atheism to use can be difficult.  Nevertheless, the following are some definitions offered by atheists.  Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God.

        * "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god."
        * "An atheist lacks belief in a god."
        * "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all."
        * "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry."
        * "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas."

There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between.  Strong atheists actively believe and state that no God exists.  They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god.  Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try to shoot holes in theistic beliefs.  They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence.  They are active, often aggressive, and openly believe that there is no God.

Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence.  Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.'  I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God, but they say they are open to further evidence for God's existence.

Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God.  The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; it isn't an issue.  He doesn't believe it or not believe it.

Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists.  They are, fortunately, few in number.  They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians.  I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending.  Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies.  Basically, no meaningful conversation can be held with them.

Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists
Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories.  The first is the lack-of-evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence.  The second is the category where the athiest believes that the idea of God's existence is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand.  To simplify, one position says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that God exists, and the other position says the evidence is contrary to God's existence.  For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate.  But, some of those who claim to lack belief in God are often involved in discussions where they are arguing against God's existence.

A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows:  God is supposed to be all good and all powerful.  Evil and suffering exist in the world.  If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist.  If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering.  Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope).  Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist.  Of course, the problem is that the criticism is a false dichotomy.  In other words, there are more than two possibilities; namely, God might have a reason for allowing evil and suffering; man's freedom might require the allowance of evil and suffering, etc.
Some Basic Tenets of Atheism

Presuppositions are important to us all.  We look at the world through them.  The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too.  As I said, there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, but there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt.  I've tried to list some of them below.  Pease note, however, that not all atheists accept all of these tenets.  The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods.

       1. There is no God or devil.
       2. There is no supernatural realm.
       3. Miracles cannot occur.
       4. There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will.
       5. Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable.
       6. Man is material.
       7. Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact.
       8. Ethics and morals are relative

For the Christian, atheism clashes with many aspects of our faith.  Some atheists openly attack Christianity, citing apparent contradictions in the Bible, perceived philosophical difficulties related to God, and what they consider as logical evidences against God's existence.  But the atheists' criticisms are not without very good answers, as you will see in the coming papers.

Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry © Matthew J. Slick, 1995 - 2009

I read stuff on forums, Nigerian Forums to be specific, and my eyes drip with liquid, my heart bleeds something red, and I shamed I am part of the constant "I am better than you", "you suck", that I see. Why can't people just get on, is all I think. Why can't people be perfected into the ‘Gods’ that religions, and the religious leaders we claim to revere have shown us that we are able to be, I ask? Do we really not understand the benefits (“peace”, “progress” at least, though there are more) which can, and does (my experience shows me) spring forth from the thought in our heads regardless of whether the God we worship exists or not? Why the hypocrisy folks, don't we all have mirrors we can look in and see if we are loving one another or not?

buda is most certainly an atheist. By that, I do not mean that buda does not only not believe in the existence of God or Gods, but that buda knows that there is no God apart from you, all of you that is! Or did someone - no Someone! - not specifically say, “If one does not unto those whom one sees, one cannot be doing unto any God one sees not”?

Buda does go to Saint John's with Holy Trinity every Sunday and Monday morning, let it be known - on Sunday to sing, and read, and be told something that exercises the mind, and on Monday to teach mainly Muslims, English Language, and to learn about Islam from those I teach. At no time during this English Teaching do I insult my students with the religion of Saint John's with Holy Trinity, even though the lessons are in a Church. In my atheistic way, I know that Bangladeshi, Pakistani, etc, students benefit more from the learning I enable them to acquire than they would from my indoctrinating them into some belief that means nothing to them and contradicts what they already hold to be true. In Christianese, I bring Christ to them by empowering them to operate in the community that they live in, I believe. As to their going to some Paradiso, I leave that to them!

I am indeed heavily influenced by Zen Buddhism, which is a form of Buddhism that even some Buddhists (I am told) frown on. It specifically, advocates a more mystical way of seeing things and uses any text to put its message across, so I am able to use my Koran, Bible, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, James Hadley Chase, Pacesetters, Alice in Wonderland, The Lankavatara, The Dhammapada, amongst others, to develop my mind. However, this list is  not exclusive, for I know the errors of eating only bread, (Deuteronomy 8:3). I am especially aware that even all the seas and trees in the world, both multiplied seven times, would neither produce enough ink or pens to write every word that is Godly (Al Quran 31:26). Yet, though much read, and still in no way as much as what one pen and the ink of even one ocean would write, one cannot claim that one knows it all and that everyone else is wrong. In fact, the more I read, the more ignorant I discover I am is more the truth; and if anything humbles one better, one’s tinniness in the whole scheme of things sure is it is what I find.

Behind the veil of what we call God, there is you, you see - a human being like me, who bleeds when poked, and cries when kicked hard, and laughs when celebrating a birthday. There is not one of us, but many of us with our diverse views, opinions, and ideologies by which we live our lives. All religions and societally beneficial ideologies, at the very fundamental, advocate the recognition of this one fact. I, for one, am assured to burn in the hotmost part of hell if I dared forget and be horrible to another creation. not that I fear going to hell or anything! Just that I would not like you to poke or kick me back is all. But just looky you all, so much loving you showing despite the difference, all you Angels saying nice things to one another, and on a birthday at that, and even without abandoning your Gods or ideologies or bents or adopting one another’s! Oh, so much love!

I found the above and posted it because it fit a certain way of thought I often come across regardless of religion or lack of, I fear to say. I didn't write it. The hope is that it will be a mirror by which each will remove the forest from his or her own eye, I hope.



P.s I am going to post it on NIA (Yep! We up again!). You might wanna see how a different group of people respond to the same thing.

jackdaniel:
Various factors increase the strengths of egregores, it would be unwise to comment on certain issues on a public thread . ("dare","know","will" and "silence"; i hope you get it buda.

Sorry, but not acceptable!

It has already been said that things are hidden. Surely those who have lifted the corner of the veil are not allowed to continue to hide that which for its knowing edifies the soul is what I reckon.

For it is written, some of what one writes will fall by the wayside and the birds will come and devour them. Some of what one writes will fall on stony places and will wither away when the sun scorches them becasue they have no soil to take root in. Some will fall among thorns and be choked to death as soon as they spring up. But others will fall on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some a millionfold, and some thirty billionfold and even more, jackdaniel.

"Write!" As the Angel Gabriel said to the Prophet. And let they who have ears to hear, read it!

M. James says:

A impressionable young atheist was having an attack of conscience and started questioning his faith in science so he wrote to a well-know atheist and asked him for some advice about living out his beliefs as an atheist. The young atheist received this reply to his question 'How can I be an effective atheist?'

1. Make sure your main focus is on Christians. You can 'touch' on other groups to appear even-handed, but ensure you are careful to make Christians your constant target; you don't want to get killed in a Jihad, do you? So only 'mention' the others such as Islam but then say that there is no difference between radical Muslims and 'fundamentalist' Christians.

2. Remember that you are looking for faults in other religions (Christians) not trying to defend yours so do not try to prove atheism! Remember, it's much easier to destroy than build up.

3. When referring to atheists always use power-filled terms like 'intelligent, educated, thinkers, strong minded and independent.'

4. Ensure you call Christians childish degrading names like, pathetic air-heads, pointless God-bother-er's, deluded bible kissers and insult them with statements which include the terms like ignorant, clueless, uneducated. The goal here is to provoke and frustrate the Christian to the point they become angry, then, you can then claim they are a hypocrite for not being 'loving like Jesus.'

5. Always talk about just being a good person remembering that, 'good' is relative to each people and culture, just like cannibals who say 'I really enjoyed eating Bill last night, he was really 'good', or paedophiles saying 'they love little Janet, she was so 'good' or Hitler saying that killing Jews is 'good.' You are allowed to define 'good' however you would like because there is no higher authority to define what 'good' is. No one can set the objective moral standard as that would put them in the place of thinking they are 'god.'

6. Be sure to set your own moral standards and compass very, very, very low so that you'll never look like a hypocrite in public. The lower the better.

7. Be as argumentative, obnoxious, loud, sarcastic and verbal as possible - there is no need to make sense or use logic in your arguments - just keep arguing.

8. Use words like 'straw-man,' 'circular reasoning,' 'ad hominem,' 'fallacy,' 'red herring' and 'non sequiturs' against any argument which reveals the false claims of atheism whether you understand those terms or not.

9. Never answer any justified question directly but quickly change the subject to make a completely different point. If you're asked why you keep changing the subject just repeat this step as necessary.

10. Always bring up examples like the spaghetti monster, Zeus, and Santa Claus to prove that if you must believe in one God then you have to believe in all of them, right?!

11. Always ask for 'evidence' for the existence of God but never accept anything presented to you especially when you are told that God is a Spirit so you can not perceive Him with the physical senses or with any physical equipment. Also ignore the reply that 'God is God and he does not need to 'prove' himself to his creation, we are to answer to Him, He does not answer to us!' At the end of a discussion remind them that all you needed was some type of 'evidence' for God.

12. Use the Christian crusades, the Salem witch hunts, and the Inquisition which happened hundreds of years ago to 'prove' how bad 'religion' is for the world.

13. Use steps 7 through 9 to get away from any historical facts of all the good that the various Christian charities have done around the world through the centuries.

14. Express disinterest and laugh out loud at the question "Isn't it amazing that Christians continue to preach love and forgiveness to the world given the historical fact atheists have committed the most ongoing blatant atrocities against Christians. Shouldn't these Christians, 'who you claim are the problem,' in retribution, have wiped atheists from the face of the earth for the crimes atheists have committed against Christians, rather than continue to preach love, acceptance and tolerate you.

15. Blindly ignore any questions about millions of Christians being killed by atheists in the last 200 years, but if questions persist claim that this was NOT done 'in the name' of atheism ,  which makes it alright. Failing this, refer to steps 7 through 9, this should get you past any awkward questions about atheists who are guilty of crimes against humanity, human genocide and ethnic cleansing.

16. Remember to call yourself a "free-thinker" and "open-minded" but ensure you do not practice what you preach with such 'virtues' when it comes to Christianity. Being open-minded with Christians is not an option available to the atheists as this would open a can of worms we do not want to get into, you must understand that you are not 'free-to-think' that 'there is a God.'

17. Try to laugh out loud or make some disparaging noise every time a Christian makes a statement about what they believe, even if you don't think it is funny or you don't know what they are talking about or you may think they have a good point just try to make them look stupid with your laugh or disrespectful noise.

18. Claim that atheism is for intelligent people who are rooted in "rational, reasonable common sense" thinking even though you can not provide any 'rational, reasonable common sense' explanation for the existence of matter or the cause of the ignition of 'life' or our existence, ignore the fact that less than 10% of the human population claim to be atheists and then use steps 7 through 9 to get away from the question: "what does that say about the other 90% of humanity?"

19. Confess to everyone that you were once a Christian but you saw that all Christians were just hypocrites and realised that reasonable scientific, rational, logical investigation is the only way to truly understand the world we live in.
Note: Ignore the hypocrisy in your own life when you pray in troubled times!

20. Refuse to accept or believe anything in the Bible because it was written by MEN.

21. Believe and quote other writings of MEN to prove that the Bible is wrong.
Note: completely ignore the inconsistency between steps 20 & 21

22. When referring to the Bible use the words 'myth,' 'fables,' 'fairytales,' 'ideas' and 'opinions' as often as possible.
Note: Ignore the question or use steps 7 to 9 to answer the question 'don't you believe your books and writings of science written by men just like we believe our Bible which was written by men?"

23. Only use the Bible as the authority when it will advance the atheist religion and will contribute to the atheist dogmas and doctrines. Ignore the question 'You have quoted the bible as evidence, so if the bible is true in one place the entire bible must be true, so what about the scripture that says, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN or THE LORD IS GOOD AND HIS MERCY ENDURES FOREVER or WHERE GOD REVEALS HIS MERCIFUL NATURE WHEN HE SENT JONAH AND SPARED THE EVIL CITY OF NINEVEH?'

24. Only quote the Bible verses that put God in a bad light, make sure every scripture quoted makes God look like a mean, unfair judge and never ever allow anyone to quote scriptures which show Him in the positive light of a loving heavenly father.

25. Tell everyone you have read the Bible and that you understand what it teaches whether you have or have not, even if you have only read the parts which support your argument and the atheistic religion, you have still 'read the bible,' right!?

26. Refer to step 7 through 9 when once you have stated that the problem in the world is religion, but it is then pointed out to you that atheism is a religion its self with it's own evangelical preachers who preach their own doctrines based on their own bible called 'The origins of the species.'

27. Reject all notions that you live by faith even though you must put your faith in the writings of your own atheist high priests and gurus like Darwin, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Atkins and any other book that supports your 'beliefs.' Yes we put our faith in pilots, cars, food, doctors, evolution, and the next chair that you sit in but ignore this obvious flaw in our doctrine as well.

28. Make the claim that you only have one life and don't want to waste it on religion, then ignore your own hypocrisy by living out your own self-serving religion of atheism.

29. If your conscience begins to bother you because of moral guilt you can numb it with arrogance, self-deception, self- importance, judgement of the 'religious' (Christians) people, delusions of NO coming judgement and if this fails try some drugs, alcohol, sex, rape, murder whatever you feel like, remember, 'good' is relative and you only have one life, so live it, best of all there is no hell, right?

30. If doing the drugs and stuff does not appeal to you and you want to appear as a 'morally' upstanding person of the community, don't do the all those things but never let go of your self righteous arrogance and pride. It is this pride that will get you through many a hard times when you are struggling with a question of conscience and of your atheistic faith.

errr,  ummm ,  just in a final note, you never know, so just is case, every day ,  thank God for the free-will he has given you to express your religion of atheism as-you-see-fit, there just maybe hell to pay but ignore that reality and replace it with your own atheistic reality ,  for now, any-way, maybe?!

, and ego has the last laugh
[url=http://buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,3222,0,0,1,0]by Kathiresan, The New Straits Times, Sep 24, 2006[/url]

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- RELIGION divides people. His eyes on the newspaper, my teenage son continued: "If religion was intended to bring peace, why are people fighting over it?"

I did not have to guess the reason for the question. He was reading about the outcry that followed Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks about Islam.

I could have told him he was still young and would not understand. But, no, that won’t do. For today’s teenagers are more knowledgeable than teenagers of my generation.

I gave the safe reply that religion appeared sometimes to drive a wedge between people but, overall, there was good in it. Anyway, I added, people had been fighting in the name of religion for 2,000 years or more.

He shot a glance at me. If I didn’t know him better (and which parent claims otherwise?), I would have thought he was thinking: "Don’t give me that crap."

He went back to his reading. A few seconds later, he ventured: "Why can’t people of different religions live in peace? Why do people kill in the name of religion?"

Perhaps I took a little too long to answer, for he continued: "You have taught me that there cannot be one God for the Hindus, one for the Muslims, one for the Christians, one for the Buddhists and one for the Sikhs. I still remember your water example."

My mind rolled back, trying to recall the words uttered years ago when I was attempting to explain God. I had said water was called Thanni in Tamil, Air in Bahasa Melayu, Water in English and Chooi in Hokkien. No matter what you call it, water is water.

Calling it by another name does not change its properties or its functions. And water belongs to all. There is no Hindu water or Muslim water or Christian water or Buddhist water.

Similarly, I had told him, God was known by different names in different languages.

The approaches and rituals practised depended on factors such as geography and local culture at the period in history when a particular religion took shape.

His voice jolted my reminiscing.

"I’m just trying to understand why adults tell us that fighting is wrong but then fight each other in the name of God who is supposed to stand for love and peace."

Oh, how I have anguished over that very question. I had concluded that it was due to rigidity in refusing to see that there are various ways of approaching God, not just the way one is born into. I told him so. He nodded, but I wasn’t sure if he was satisfied with the answer.

But the old disquiet gushed up again. More so when two days later, my colleague Balan Moses broached the subject of inter-religious strife.

Can anyone deny that religion, which should provide strength and guidance towards living a good life, has also become a source of heated argument and intellectual anxiety? Even fear?

And that murders have been, and continue to be, committed in the name of God?

I recalled Charles Caleb Cotton’s words: "Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die for it; anything but live it." How true.

That day, when I went home, I called my son over and ventured an answer: "These murders, these fears, these arguments have nothing to do with religion. They have to do with the ego."

The ego lurks unassumingly, often exhibiting an air of benevolence, waiting to pounce on, and gobble up, the smallest of gestures and the briefest of words. For that is how it grows.

Stripped naked, what is the ego but the "I" and the "my".

"I" fight with you because you said something about "my" religion. You want to burn "my" temple because "I" demolished yours.

"I" think "my" religion is better than yours. You feel your religion is superior to "mine".

So religion is not to be blamed. It is the ego behind those professing the religion. Religious competition is driving many conflicts today.

My son asked: "But isn’t the ego individual? I have an ego, you have an ego. But people as a group get upset and go crazy, burning and killing, sometimes over petty issues."

My mind went back to the Kampung Rawa incident in Penang — where people of different faiths fought each other over the ringing of a bell. But then again, politics played a major part in that conflict.

There was such a thing as "collective ego", an ego shared by members of a group of people who had the same or similar characteristics and practised a common way of life, I said.

When you decry my religion, for instance, I take it as a personal attack on me because this is my religion.

My ego is hurt. If many such individual egos feel bruised or hurt, then the collective ego is hurt, I added. As it is rather subtle, its presence is not immediately felt or understood.

The ego, which is often nurtured by demeaning others, breathes only when there is some sort of struggle — to be more beautiful, better, superior or to have more of something or other.

"That," said my son, "sounds more plausible."

"Great", I said, "now, we need to talk about your plan of study, "

He shot a glance, at me, again. But this time it seemed to say: "Oh, no. I should have gone to bed earlier."

jackdaniel:
Jargon=> Kabbalah is a very broad subject, being specific might help. I met a man who has been studying the kabbalah for over 40yrs and to my amassment he told me he was a beginner. From my journey in the kabbalah , I’m willing to share any knowledge that might be helpful, I am also a learner like  you.  Maybe i’ll say a little about the design of the tree of life. The design of the tree is derived from the intersection of 6 + 1 circles. The points in which they have multiple interceptions form the sephiroths. The six circles intercept on points of creation, while the seventh circle in the middle embodies points of greater concentration of power. This is part of the explanation of the six days of creation and the 7th day of rest in the torah or in the bible.
I will also talk about a sentence in the bible or torah known in Hebrew as Bereshith ; “In the beginning God said let there be light and there was light”. That sentence embodies almost every aspect of the kabbalah; because a kabbalist deals with Thought, sound, the alphabets and numbers. These are all frequencies. In Science today, the field of Cymantics pioneered by Hans jenny has confirmed what the kabbalist proposed over a thousand years ago. In cymatic scientist found out that different frequency of sound create different structures. The power of the kabbalist is depicted in that simple quotation in the torah, the kabbalist is a master in structuring frequencies eg sound to create new realities.

On the Kabbalah, I doubt you could explain it Jack, only becasue of the complexity involved, even if it is understood. I find it to be a method of reasoning (or thinking) that developed though the search for deeper truth in the Torah and specifically the Bereshith which you quoted. Studies of it seem to develop the reasoning ability of the individual in a sort of eye opening way, I would say. A E Waite did a rather good job, for those interested.

jackdaniel:
@jagunlabi & buda => it's nice you guys raised the question of the "egregores as a collective ego"?. My reply is this;  the egregore goes beyond the jungian collective ego;  a well formed egregore is linked to the the mind of it's host's, but it has it's own distinct ego. I could liken an egregore to a child who does the will of his parents and stops when he is 21, but unfortunately this child still has his umbilical codes attached to his parents. The notion of the egregore should not be confused with the universal mind or the Jungian archetypes. In the universal mind all ego's are nullified[1], while the Jungian archetypes are more or less patterns of human characteristics recorded in all societies[2], in my opinion i think the Jungian archetypes are patterns encoded in the human DNA.

Just some notes. As far as I know, Jungianism does not do "collective ego", or I have just not come across it yet, though as I write this - and to contradict myself - Hitler's Germany comes to mind. It was more of a collective unconsciousness however, unless one wants to claim that they all adopted Hitler's ego. As to Jung's Archetypes, they are coded alright, but not in the DNA. They are ideas that different societies have encoded in their psyche through learning, and may differ or be similar depending.

An egregore sounds more like the aoption of the teachings of a religious (or ideological) leader. I am reading [url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=Essays+in+Zen+Buddhism,+first+series++By+Daisetz+Teitaro+Suzuki]Essays In Zen Buddhism First Series[/url], and it seems the word would fit Bodhidharma who took Zen teachings to China. It also fits Christ and Mohammed too, as you have said, I see:

jackdaniel:
@Jaggon => all religions have egregores, but some egregores are more organized and institutionalised. The older an egregore, the more knowledgeable and probably  the more powerful it is.

I do not agree that age makes an egregore any more potent however. If that were the case, those of the Christianity would be more potent than those of Islam, and Judaic one's would be more potent too, but what I see is potency depends on the believer, and not the age of the egregore.

lagerwhenindoubt:
@buda atum
tsk, tsk, tsk, soo typical

it is simply this sort of approach to problem-solving that makes the Blackman soo slow to move towards progress, small-vision tactics, Look at the BIG Picture, one Obama does not mean squat, we need millions of Obamas

just because you are an upstanding Black person does not make everyone else, guy, just accept the fact that numbers count and if you were truly to look at this without sentiments and personal feelings, you will know that you are probably one good one in 50 black men in America today.

let us not even begin to think of Africa,

Sorry larger, but the facts just do not agree with you, that I am one in 50, and I am talking about Nigeria, and not America, a country I hardly qualify to determine statistics of goodness for. But let us look at the "facts" as you say.

One thing I have learnt is to concern myself more with the forest growing in my own eyes. I find that if I fail to do this and focus on the twig in the eyes of others, my ignorance (blindness, would be more appropriate under the circumstances) makes me think that the forest in my eye is a twig in the eye of another. I guess that is why an adage I live by is to be the change that I desire. Its also why the Christian song about my light - not little by any measure - is one very close to my heart.

I tend to attract those who find my being (there is no better word), appealing, and such are the ones who tend to be around me much. That is why, perhaps, I can say that there are more well behaving, uprightly standing people in my world (and I say "my world", becasue I am aware that there are other pockets of the world out there where disgustingly nasty people may be in the majority). I guess at the root of it is the fact that like attracts like, though please do not take my word as attestation to my supposed holiness, Larger.

Indeed there are bad people in Nigeria, and Africa, and the world moreso, but the black person, or Nigerian, does not have any sort of exclusivity on badness by any standard, unless one were to accept what the news would have one believe. And the many good one's out there (for they too exist) are well seen when one gets past the forest that blinds some, I suggest.

bawomolo:
not at all. I just lurk through the forum from time to time. especially the religious section.

A lurker. You must have read quite a lot of my writings if you visit the religious section of NIA!  Is an honour to meet you.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=294722.msg4176142#msg4176142 date=1247449750]bawomolo what's NIA?
Can i have the website adress please?[/quote]Tudor, we are down for maintenance at the moment. Our NIA Lord Zadok takes his time with these thing, but we'd hopefully be up by the end of the week.

Thanks for your informed reply, Abuzola.

banom:
I read the quran and some of my abservations is that some things and names mentioned  in the Holy Bible which were told and written many centuries before mohamed was born are found in his qu ran,

did he Pirate the Bible or atleast part of the bible to manufacture his qu ran, was he a Pirate ?

Becasue the same Angel Gabriel who informed of the birth of a Child who shall be called Christ the Messiah gave him the message.

Jungian, Jackdaniel? Impressive, though the ego is hardly ever collective. Do you mean the "Collective unconscious", or even "Conscious"? Seems that's what jagunlabi is asking us to create, to wit I would raise concern that he might be asking for the formation of a "egregore", without what he calls the negative aspect.

olabowale:
@buda atum: Now how can any of those examples apply to "the Biblical" verse of in my father's house, there are many places in it? That was my only inquiry. I could have agreed with youif you had said that the worshipping of the three god personalitie; Father, Son and Ghost, with a focal point by some logical miracle as becoming one is similar to the Ono kon o wo Oja yoruba statement.

One will have to asume that in Christian theological notion, ignoring or or two for the other that is focused upon among the three personaity will actually weakens thegodship/lordshipwhich they all become, hence the singular oja in this case.

Considering that a cat is assumed by its resillience to have 9 lives, the expression of more than one way to skin it is quite appropriate Yet no one thinks that cat has in reality more than one life, or other animals can not be skinned in just as many ways the skinner(s) wish(es) to go about it.

This is just my own opinion, even though I agree with your Ejirin robust expalanation.

Olabowale, the initial question of the thread had nothing to do, or rather, I did not approach it from a theological point of view, despite my "many houses" analogy. Linguistically, however - the perspective which the intellect made me approach it from - shows me the similaritiy in opinion of the two sayings as I presented it. Am I so far off in my analogy, do you think? Can one not say that Christ's Father's many mansions does not, or cannot mean, that there is more than one way to get in, or more accurately, that there are more than one place to be in his Father's House?

On reading your above, I figure I am limited by my very own intellect. I know that theological minded people would be rather averse to my opinion as expressed. After all, I am aware of my theological implication that "not only through Christ shall one enter the Kingdom of God", especially if one takes the view that "Christ" is only how Christians see "Christ".

Increases in knowledge are generally good for buda for they make buda understand more and hence become a better person.
With this post, you, olabowale, have increased the knowledge of buda and made buda better.

olabowale:
@Stoneval: Muslim's daily mode of worship is primarily what you in general sense, snce you are not a muslim, just said above in your first post. The muslims call this salah. It is nothing that they made up themselves. It is commanded upon them, right there in the Quran; word of Allah. Muhammad (AS) the prophet that singly spearhead the last batch of the system to completion was commanded to make the same daily salah.

Salah consists of the intention: this is when you consciously says to yourself that your are going to prepare yourself so that you can make the next salah/ There are 5 salah in a day. Subh just immediately after dawn, Dhur just immediately after the Sun is past above the midday, Asr, just immediately the shadow is about twice the length of the subject casting it (in Nigeria it starts at 3.30pm; I think. I dont live in Nigeria, so not really sure any longer), Magrib is immediately after the sunsets and Isha is about 90 minutes after. Each salah will begin with the purification of the body and clothing. One have to be clean, in a way that their is no more impurity visible. The heart is completely prepared and the mind is focused this singular obligation, purposed by commandment as the daily physical frequent reminder (Dhikr) of your Lord.

Therefore one enters this obligation, with the sole purpose and intention to have a personal conversation with the Creator. The relationship of the servant and Who is being Served is never in doubt. The servant/slave enters the salah with full humility and humbleness in reverence to the Creator. The praying person if he/she is making this obligation alone or in congregation, the humbleness is still the same. The leader in the congregation praised Allah (The God, Olorun, Chineke, Obangiji, etc) by the initial gesture to enter and begin. From their on, everyone who is praying behind him, enters the salah.

There is the recitation of the portions of the Quran that is obligatory, each person stands up in rakah (Surah Fatiha), with any portion of the remaing Quran, to follow. The leader (Imam) the praises Allah, for the bending pasture (Rukuh). He will praiseAllah in a difference praise , until he raises himself up with a difference praise. He parsies Allah again, iwith a differet praise, yet again, quitely and then praise s again with (Allahu Akbar; most repeated praising words in Salah), for the prostration (Sajdah). In the face on the floor position is where the muslimsblieves that they are the clsest in reerence and humble humility, (and not humiliation) to Allah.

A muslim paises the Lord yet again with a great praising words and the ask blessing for the prophet and then make the request that he/she wants from Allah, then covers it with asking for mercy again for the prophet (AS). The blessing and mercy that are asked is for the good of the prayeing person, which is actually obedience to Allah's command in Surah Azhab (the Confederate). There are two facial prostrations; forehead and nose, etc must make contact with the floor for every standing and bending.

This process is repeated with a long sitting after the second round of the two bowing that will accompany the second standing/bending positions. If the salah to being offered is the after dawn salah (subuh) it will be 2 rakah and the long sitting will end the salah after the tashahuud. If it is Dhur ( after midday) is 4 rakah, Asr the late afternoon prayer is 4 rakah, the magrib at immediately the sun setsis 3 Rakah and isha that s the last prayer for the day is 4 Rakah, All persons is obligated to make thisdaily prayer, as long as they reach the age of pubery, anot mentally deranged and conscious not being in a coma. A sick person can lay on his/her side to pray. A person who has lost is voice can whisper or pray with the eye, and a ptraveller is provided an avenue of ease by shortening into 2 each of the salah that has 4 rakah. And he does not have have to make what we call sunnah sala either. I observed it as long as I lived in a place without my intention of staying there permanently. So if I were to arrive in Nigeria, on a visit and I spend 3 years straight in that country, if my intention has not changed to making a home as a primary permanent residence there, I will pray the prayers of traveller, and yet have a full reward. This is a merciful allowance from Allah to His servants who are under the stresss of journey.


By the way, it is Salah that singly separates a believer in Islamic monotheism from the disbeliever of he same monotheistic belief! A muslim who joins the alah in the middle, say after the first bending, he will have to make up the number of rakah that he had missed. For a person to be able to be acreditted for a rakah, he will have to join the prayer, by entering it properly, and gets to the bending position, immediately, while the Imam still remain in that same bending position. When an Imam leaves the bending position and a person have not been in that position with him, he has lost that rakah, and must make it up in orer to have a full salah.

Islam does not allow a person coming in at the tail end of the obligatory responsibility and says that he/she has prayed, just because he joins in with the others. Unlike other religions or ways, the responsibility of the obligation is personal and must be fulfilled fully complete.

Other part of the daily worship is remembrance of Allah (Dhikr of a different form that Salah) and reading Quran. Charity; Zakah and Sadaqah and Fasting and Hajj and doing good and avoiding evil, all for the pleasure of Allah are part of worship. This is just a tip of what mode of worship is. Salah is the primary daily and which allows the community toknow that you are part of the community. Husband and wife sleeping with each other is a worship which elps and prevents each partner from the possiblity of straying.Good manner is a worship. Kindnes is a worship.

Recognise:
@OP

- Huxley2; Pastor AIO

Nice try. Huxley2 is merely straw clutching

The analysis is amateurish and void of home-working doing

Have yall noticed Isaiah 12:3 and Isaiah 44:3 and John 4:14? . . . 

Do note that a Christ who is written to have said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God", is hardly going to limit his quotes from the Bread alone, Huxley.

bawomolo:
nice post buda.

i recognize that name from the NIA forums.

Hey thanks bawomolo. Do you post on NIA?

olabowale:
@buda atum: How could you have drawn a similarity or similitude with the Biblical in my father's house there are many places and the ono kon o woja? The yorubas when they spoke this adage/idiom, Christianity is not known to them. And what is interesting about the adage is that it is self explanatory, without anyone reading "hiding" meaning to it.

It is the fact that Oja "market" is always the center of activities and meetings in sales, commerce, etc and not always far from the Kings palace. The market is the focal point, overshadowing the king's palace, which means that homes are developed arount the Market! It is like the Kaaba of the Muslims, or the Solomon Temple of the Children of israel! Hence people on the day of the market come from all the directions to this very direct and single focus of the people of the town!

The song of Ebenzer Obey says bi o ko kon o lo Ejirin, egbe gberun ee a lo! Ejirin is an Ijebu Village, and it is bordered oon one side by Osa. Ejirin Market is a night market and people come by foot and Canoes in those days. The canoe people was the Oko being referred in that song.

Eji je eyi o je is really the conceptual twin of Ono kon o wo ja; It could be the unassuredness of the matter that will make a person tries many paths to what they think is a similar possibilities. That is why Eji je eyi o je is more to it than any Biblical my fathers's place there are many rooms or places in it!

Some people will say "There is more than one way to skin a cat", Olabowale, but one could hardly claim (and I am supposing here), that this adage refers to cats only, or would you? Take the Obey saying, you have used here: "bi o ko kon o lo Ejirin, egbe gberun ee a lo!" Is he not saying that if one person refuses to go somewhere (and that could be anywhere, and not only Ejirin, which many would not even know of or intend to go to anyway), that there are many others who would?

Pastor AIO:
Ona Kan o wo oja is yoruba for there are many paths to access the Market. It suggests that there are many possible means via which we can attain a single goal.

What is the relationship between this notion and Intellect, or Intelligence?

I think it means exactly what it says, which in Christianese, is "In my Father's house are many mansions. [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:2%20&version=9]John 14:2[/url]. I do not think it has any specific connection to intelligence except that knowing this and understanding it (which requires the use of the intelligence), will make one behave intelligently, if you get my gist, Pastor.