Comment by Buffy on February 2, 2009 at 7:35pm

Sadly the Mor(m)ons are still trying to defend what they did and to what extent they did it. And even though divorce is forbidden far more often in the Bible than is homosexuality, you'll never see any of the "Pro-family" groups clamoring for constitutional amendments banning divorce. Still they insist they're not anti-gay, just "defending traditional marriage".

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Comment by Bodhi on February 4, 2009 at 8:25pm

Hi evryone...am new here!!

Comment by James M. Martin on February 4, 2009 at 10:51pm

Hello, Bodhi. Are you escaping Buddhist cultic brainwashing or indoctrination? :-) If you are enlightened, could you please enlighten me?

Comment by James M. Martin on February 4, 2009 at 10:56pm

BTW, that quote from your profile, from the Dhammadapa, helped me stop drinking 14 years ago. I think that was the beginning of the end. To understand that there is No God, one must understand emptiness -- the whole concept of literally "nothing," a la Nagarjuna and the Prajnaparamita sutra.

Comment by Bodhi on February 5, 2009 at 9:44am

Hi james..Buddhism is not about doctrines or intellectual games. It is about action and guide us on how we behave as truly humane beings to the path of self-perfection which is called Buddhahood.

The teaching of "emptiness" is one of the difficult buddhist concept. Buddhism teaches that all things arise and cease depending on causes and conditions. When we say that everything is "empty," we do not mean that things do not exist. What we mean is that things are always elements in a process of change and interdependence. When we learn to see things as processes and not as isolated finite objects then we will see that to talk of something being "created" or "destroyed" is only true conventionally. The network of causes and conditions that bring any "thing" into existence is actually a never-ending process with no boundaries. So in this sense, Buddhism never speaks of "creation" or "destruction," "birth" or "death," "appearance" or "disappearance," because that way of talking about things misses the infinite open-endedness and inclusivity of the process which is the reality behind the "things" that we perceive and try to grasp. This is one of the reason why Buddhism does not speak of a creation or a Creator, because the reality of life, the universe, and everything defies such concepts.

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 9, 2009 at 10:21am

Could Daniel Radcliffe be any more beautiful now?

Comment by James M. Martin on February 9, 2009 at 12:14pm

It all depends, Dallas. If he is not one's cup of tea, he might be a bit more beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think Ben Wishaw is a lot sexier.

Comment by James M. Martin on February 9, 2009 at 12:15pm

But what does this have to do with atheism?

Comment by Dallas the Phallus on February 9, 2009 at 12:16pm

Nothing, but what does atheism have to do with being gay? And yeah, Ben Wishaw is rather cute, too.

Comment by Tedster on February 9, 2009 at 3:04pm

There both idols that we should worship.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 199
• Next ›
• Page