FALSE religious teachings
Bad boy
news:3dcc6fee$0$18872$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Assalam u'Alekum all :)
>
> As stated in Quran before Allah created Adam (PBUH), angels came and asked
> God about his plans to create a creature who will act as his caliph on
> earth. Later on when God created Adam (PBUH), Allah told all the angels to
> bow to him, which they did except Satan.
Is there evidence that this story is true?
Quran is a story book, similar to the millions of
novels today, written by man!
This is strong evidence that man, like all
creatures on earth, is the result of evolution.
Why should the Quran, an ancient story, be taken as
the truth over scientific evidence?
> ..... I think we need to obey God in similar manner when he
> asks us to wear hijab and stay away ......
The earth is FLAT according to the Quran.
Would God make such enormous basic error?
This is proof that the Quran is written by
man.
God did not ask women to wear hijab:
the stupid authors of Quran used the name ofGod
to enslave Muslim women.
Bad boy.
zulander
"Bad boy" <BD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dcdc7e8$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/2002
virgin
Bad boy <BD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dcdc7e8$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Bad boy
I just point out the flaws in established
religions, religions that teach their followers
to kill, to commit inhuman acts, ...
Bad boy.
--
virgin <vir...@pussy.com> wrote in message
news:3dcdf890$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
jeff13
Quran is 'not a story book'. The Quran is a miracle (or mukjizat in Malay).
Every aspect of everyday life, from how to conduct yourself, your business,
your family and everything is spelled out in it. One is not a Muslim simply
by praying five times a day but ignore the Quran and al-Sunnah. If there is
any holy scriptures which have been manipulated by men, it is the
Bible...not the Quran. Get your bloody facts right before making any
accussation. Hopefully you are not a Muslim. But if you are, I hope you
repent before its too late.
--
M. Jeffri Razali
"Bad boy" <BD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dcdc7e8$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Sambar Idli
>Mohsin <moh...@maududi.com> wrote in message
>news:3dcc6fee$0$18872$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Assalam u'Alekum all :)
>>
>
>The earth is FLAT according to the Quran.
>Would God make such enormous basic error?
>This is proof that the Quran is written by
>man.
"... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was
flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical
they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical
is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is
wronger than both of them put together."
Asimov, Isaac
(1920-1992) b. Petrovichi, Russia.
(With reference to a correspondent)
Deadman
>any holy scriptures which have been manipulated by men, it is the
>Bible...not the Quran. Get your bloody facts right before making any
>accussation.
You're either very naive or have led a very sheltered life. If you'd bothered
to do a little research you'd find that almost every major religion that has
come, gone or stayed has experienced some form of missinterpretation or
manipulation; Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Hindoism etc, etc not
withstanding.
Just take a look at the thousands of cults, sects, denominations and clans out
there. Every one is a result of man's (and woman's) inability to fully obey
their God without allowing their own emotions and ideals to interfer with what
they are really required to do.
Bad boy
On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:37:04 +0800, "jeff13" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>......................I beg to differ but the Holy
>Quran is 'not a story book'.
Show me proof that the Quran is more than a
fiction,... not mere fairy tales written by man!
Show me that I am wrong.
>The Quran is a miracle (or mukjizat in Malay).
Every religion under the sun made the same "miracle"
claim.
In order to impress the illiterate masses, they claimed
miracles:
"He has special channelled to God.....He talked
to God, God appeared to him, God instructed him to tell
the people. God wanted you to do this and to do that...
.... If you refused, you will be burned in hell " were the
usual tactics.
It was the same trick they used to fool the people, the
peasants. This ruse was used for mind control and for
enslaving the people.
They did not know Communism, or modern mind-control
techniques. They used miracle, "special relationship
with God" to control the masses in the dark ages.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, there still are many
mindless people who faithfully continue to worship the
God created by man.
Anyone with a rigorously trained mind would be able
see the flaws of the "miracle" claim.
A simple challenge to the validity of the "miracles",
will bring down whole house of cards.
If David Copperfield had live in those dark ages
of long ago, he would be worshiped as a God.
> ,..... it is the Bible...not the Quran. Get your bloody facts right
>before making any accussation.
For a Muslim, I am ashamed that your knowledge of the
Quran is almost Zero.....very limited!
Christians, Jews, and Muslims pray to the SAME
almighty God. By calling the almighty, Allah, or God
does not make him a different God.
The three religion pray to the God of Adam and
Eve, pray to the God of Moses, pray to the God
of Abraham.....ie the SAME God.
The authors of the Quran, the Torah and the Bible
created three different religions, worshipping the
same God, each claiming that their is the true God
and therefore a better religion.
Just like you, you claim that Allah is truer than
the God of Adam and Eve, and Islam is a better
religion than Christian.
This is one of the strongest proof that the holy
books were written by men. If it was from God,
he would NOT have perpetuated such stupid
flaws.
Read the Quran with an open mind, treat all
the miracle claims as mind-control tactics, you will
see the light.
However, I bet you, you will take up the challenge.
You cannot do it, you are frighten to do it, your mind
will freeze, you have been brained washed.....
You have lost " the brain and the free will" God has given to
all of us. You are really lost.....
When the time come, just before you die,
you will realised that you lived a lie all your life.
What a waste!
Bad boy.
AM Abdul Rahman
him alone..then the world will be a better place.
"Bad boy" <BD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3dd0e58a$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
Observer
"Mahasanti" <cf...@tm.net.my> wrote in message
news:nal0tu8ric8nt69lf...@4ax.com...
> What's the difference with miracle and non-miracle since everything are
said
> to be a miracle of God?
Go read a dictionary on what a "miracle" is...
And WHO said that "everything are said to be
a miracle of God"?....LOL
> When religious extremists label a certain scriptures
> as a work of miracle while other scriptures are not, they contradict their
> own belief that everything is created by God and so a miracle.
Fool.
A miracle is not defined as that lar...LOL
> If God creates everything, then all compositions are a miracle,
Another moronic assertion without any basis whatsoever...LOL
> If people are converted to a principal and assert a principal to be true
> based on the greater number of believers in a particular belief system,
then
> given the great number of assertion that contradict the logic of the
> existence of the all-creator,
Aiyah..don;t confuse yourself with all
that deep thinking lar...
Just simple reading of dictionaries can tell
you more about life and your absolute ignorance
about how logical arguments are made....LOL
> it is nature that by the same herd-instinct,
> there will arise group of atheists that are established by the
contradiction
> of Theists. These two groups, i.e. the Theists and Atheists are
> inter-dependent, each cannot exist without the other.
Just stick to reading more instead of wasting
bandwidth...by trying to pass off ypur illogical
arguments as logic.
Observer
> >Go read a dictionary on what a "miracle" is...
> >And WHO said that "everything are said to be
> >a miracle of God"?....LOL
>
> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
different
> from God, being different, it could exist before God, being uncreated,
> therefore not subjected to a creator.
This all sound extremely fanciful....but
is USELESS when you do not present
your thoughts in a clear and sequential manner.
You have not even define what the parameters
of this "God".
Does this God exist?
Are you arguing on a hypothetical basis?
Or is this your belief?
You do not argue your case and "win" by presenting
convioluted but meaningless sentences...that cannot be analysed
from some reference point that is well known by others and
accepted.
You said things like:
> If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing
Even this sentence already is meaningless as
the conclusion that you want others to accept here
has not been thoroughly debated by you to establish
its correctness.
Why must something that is created by God...be
"of God"?
Is this a fact known and established beyond doubt?
Must everything that God created...essentially be
"part of God"?
How do you know?
Have you seen God to determine that the statement
is true?
Whilst you question other people's beliefs and scoffs
at unfounded "facts" being heralded by others....yet you
yourself resort to arguing on the same STYLE...
Your argument has about the same merit as the ones
that you are trying to refute....LOL
> But unfortunately, the teaching of
> theism rejected such possibility, it assert all things, which include all
> thing-events, including all interpretations about miracles or non-miracles
> are created by God. Therefore, their own logic assert that all miracles
must
> be from God, and so all things which is from God must be of miracle.
Please lar...
Complex ideas start with a SINGLE statement
of fact that can be built upon.
No need to overwhelm your opposers with MANY
arguments if you have the TRUTH within your grasp.
One sentence can make your case IF you are confident
ofi its correctness.
Is it an accident that the words of wise sages are SHORT
and to the point and yet able to impart comlex philosophy
with those words?
So in comparison...your need to use convoluted statements
which can hardly be deciphered as it appeasr to be a mish mash of
"assumptions that you try to present as fact" and other what nots...
shows that IMO..shows that.you are really not sure of what you're
talking about either....LOL
Start with simple things thats easily understood
and argued....like establishing what a"miracle"
means to YOU and how you want to argue it.
How did you come up with the definition of
this "miracle"?
(Did you make it up?...LOL)
Is it a widely accepted definition that we can
successfully say that after this debate...many
people would easily be able to accept the outcome?
Hehe...but of course I assuming that you do understand
what we mean by "debate".....LOL
> The logic here is not limited to the term "miracle", everything is
> applicable here, as long as theist alienate something in favour of another
> thing, they alienate the creation itself, which is the same, inseparable
> from God. Even the creator cannot alienate his creation, because he cannot
> undone reality (if creation is a reality). The point is about logical
> inconsistency, which has nothing to do with terminology, therefore forget
> about the dictionary.
>
> Further, I didn't make any assertion about any miracle or non-miracle,
> because I did not assert an unknown source of miracle. I merely remind the
> theists what they have forgotten in their own doctrine, and how their
> forgotten concept contradict their new assertion.
>
> The pretext that God is unknown, does not prevent the possibility for
> discussion, because if the unknown can be discuss, and can made into a
> religion that convert the masses through language and communication, it
can
> hardly be qualified as unknown. For if the unknown can be communicated and
> therefore convert people, the possibility for the unknown to be
communicated
> become open. I did not assert the unknown to be within the realm of
language
> and thought, but the religion that are based on the realm of language and
> thought assert that the unknown is within the realm of language and
thought
> of their scriptures and commentaries.
>
> I have a statement to make, since the unknown is make known as that which
> create all things. I have a statement to make, since the unknown is make
> known as that which is omniscient. I have a statement to make, since the
> unknown is make known as that which is omnipotent. I have a statement to
> make, since the unknown is make known as that which is within words and
> scripture commentaries. I have a statement to make, since the unknown can
be
> made known as God. I have a statement to make, since the unknown can be
made
> known as that which is unknown.
>
> I have a statement to make, since the unknown is make known by theists who
> make the above assertions possible. I never made a statement that the
> unknown is possible to make known in any way. The unknown cannot be make
> known, the unknown is unknown, period.
Wahhh...so cheem one lar...
But do anybody understand anything?
Can any result be used beyond the scope of
similar minded people who actually take all the
assumptions you made as facts......?
Or are you satisfied to live in a cave?....LOL
Liar..Liar
the best religion have the best followers
that exclude you.
"Mahasanti" <cf...@tm.net.my> wrote in message
news:nal0tu8ric8nt69lf...@4ax.com...
> What's the difference with miracle and non-miracle since everything are
said
> to be a miracle of God? When religious extremists label a certain
scriptures
> as a work of miracle while other scriptures are not, they contradict their
> own belief that everything is created by God and so a miracle.
>
> If God creates everything, then all compositions are a miracle, including
> the Bible, Quran, and all books by ordinary persons without exception. But
> if one book such as the Quran is a miracle while others are not, then God
> did not creates everything, except the Quran, yet this would contradict
the
> belief of all Theists.
>
> When religious extremists claimed their scriptures are holy while others
are
> not, then they contradict their belief that God creates everything [, and
> therefore everything must be holy, including other religions and
> non-religious scriptures].
>
> Since so many argument and conflict arise between different sect of
Theists
> which includes Islam and Christianity with regards to their own
scriptures,
> these argument and conflict directly contradict the believe of God as the
> all-creator, due to their strong assertion, we cannot help but concede to
> their own logic that there was never a God which creates all things.
>
> If people are converted to a principal and assert a principal to be true
> based on the greater number of believers in a particular belief system,
then
> given the great number of assertion that contradict the logic of the
> existence of the all-creator, it is nature that by the same herd-instinct,
> there will arise group of atheists that are established by the
contradiction
> of Theists. These two groups, i.e. the Theists and Atheists are
> inter-dependent, each cannot exist without the other.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 01:37:04 +0800, "jeff13" <am...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Observer
> >> If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
> >> from God, being different, it could exist before God, being uncreated,
> >> therefore not subjected to a creator.
> It is a logical discussion based on metaphor, not reality.
Nonsense.
Arguments are based on logic and proofs.
Not methaphors.
Are you saying that YOUR logic is based
on metaphors?....LOL
>No theist can
> justified their assertion of God as reality, so I'm not oblige to
justified
> the same.
Hehe.....this has nothing to do with any theist claim.
Its about how you argue and how you justify
your arguments...
Total nonsense.
Arguments like this:
>> If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing
Is just as bad as what you are trying to oppose...LOL
They are all based on illogic reasoning which you now
claim as logic....LOL
Show us the proof of the above statement...
> >Why must something that is created by God...be
> >"of God"?
>
> Because the created is from the creator, not from somewhere else. Since
the
> created come from no where else, it is from the creator, and therefore 'of
> the creator'.
Haha...this is an argument...not proof that statement
is correct.
Your argument borders on the MORONIC....LOL
> >Is this a fact known and established beyond doubt?
>
> It is a metaphor, we cannot assert the unknown to exist as something which
> we can call whatever we like.
Haha...nobody is arguing about the existence of God
with you....
What I am asking is about your OWN claims
and arguments about how such a God must be.
>But since the theist attempt to make known the
> unknown as the all-creator, by assuming we know the unknown by the
theist's
> vision,
Haha....what a moron....
We base aguments on facts....not using
something that we already think is false...LOL
>we come up with series of inter-dependence logical contradictions,
> which the theist failed to remind us, despite their attempt to remind us
of
> the word 'logic'.
Haha...what contradictions....?
Your argument for these contradictions are the ones
I'm questioning about.
Arguments like:
>>If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
How do you know that od cannot create something different
from Him?
Your claims are just as absurd if not MORE absurd
that those that you are trying to refute....LOL
> >Must everything that God created...essentially be
> >"part of God"?
>
> Logically, yes.
Haha...prove it lar.
Why is it this God cannot create something that
is not "part" of Him?
Something totally new.
How do you know that God and the Universe
are not separate?
How do you know that this is not possible?....LOL
> >How do you know?
>
> Logically.
Illogic,actually....LOL
> >Have you seen God to determine that the statement
> >is true?
>
> No, I am not oblige to determine the statement as true on the condition of
> having to see God, because the theist don't need to determine their
> statement as true on the condition of having to see God.
But you are supposed to justify your line
of reasoning.Like:
>>If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
Which implied that the created and the Creator
must essentially be the same...I'm presuming you
are implying sameness in matter,composition,time,
and space...etc....
How do you know it cannot be otherwise?...
> >Your argument has about the same merit as the ones
> >that you are trying to refute....LOL
>
> Thank you for the compliment.
Haha....
>If my argument has the same value as the
> theist, then the theist will be standing on a foundation which is not
100%,
> but 50% valid.
Not necessarily.
That you have shown your argument to be totally
incoherent further strenghtens their case....
That you cannot refute their claims logically....hence
their case has more chance of being correct.
Because it appears that that those that oppose them
are morons like yourself who cannot understand them
becuase of your flawed reasoning....LOL
>This would be too great a risk to gamble one's whole life
> with. How many of us are willing to take that kind of risk in every day
> situation with our life at stake?
Thats your problem.
Its is your life...you are free to do what you want
with it.
So does the theists.
But your use of illogic in attempting to debunk
their beliefs is equally perverse....LOL
>But to the muslims who are born muslim,
> due to Islamic rules, this risk are forced on them, not by their own will.
Why are you suddenly claiming to be a champion
of Muslims?....LOL
> >> But unfortunately, the teaching of
> >> theism rejected such possibility, it assert all things, which include
all
> >> thing-events, including all interpretations about miracles or
> non-miracles
> >> are created by God. Therefore, their own logic assert that all miracles
> >must
> >> be from God, and so all things which is from God must be of miracle.
> >So in comparison...your need to use convoluted statements
> >which can hardly be deciphered as it appeasr to be a mish mash of
> >"assumptions that you try to present as fact" and other what nots...
> >shows that IMO..shows that.you are really not sure of what you're
> >talking about either....LOL
>
> That would be possible, provided that the vessels are not full of
> contamination, for only an empty vessels can be filled with anything.
Haha..yet another "belief" attempted to be passed
off as something scientific.
Can you prove that a human is ever "empty"?..
Is that state ever possible?....LOL
>But
> the theist have mountain of assertions which are without valid
foundations,
> on top of this mass which can collapse anytime, what is the use of placing
a
> strong roof on top of it?
Same as yours I believe....LOL
>Therefore, the mass of assertions have to be clear
> first, only then can be a real foundation be build upon it, as support for
> the strong roof.
Something which you have avoided doing when questioned
about YOUR own assertions.....LOL
> >How did you come up with the definition of
> >this "miracle"?
> >(Did you make it up?...LOL)
>
> We would not easily call anything a miracle, for we do not have the
> assertion that something is more superior than others. We view things
> equally in the way as they are, in the scientific way, without our own
> [personal] interpretation of it.
I'm taliking about your refutation of the theists claim
of "miracles".
Not about YOUR own beliefs about how things are.
How do you know these "miracles" did not happen?
> As a result of trusting in casuality, we
> are capable of weapon of mass destruction, yet we do not consider that as
a
> miracle, anymore than a simple fact of cause and effect (relativity of
> E=MC2).
Thats because they have a different definition of
what a "miracle" is ..MORON.
Do the theist call the creation of the Nuclear bombs a "miracle"?
So what the heck are you babbling about?
I'm questioning your rationale for debunking the theists
beliefs in miracles...I don't care what you believe in...but
when you say others are at fault...then you are obliged to
prove your assertions.
> >Is it a widely accepted definition that we can
> >successfully say that after this debate...many
> >people would easily be able to accept the outcome?
> >
> >Hehe...but of course I assuming that you do understand
> >what we mean by "debate".....LOL
>
> If truth is power, an argument coming through a debate would be validated
as
> a truth.
This is YOU BELIEF,idiot.
Something that I'm not interested to debate.
Unless you now claim that this type of statements
are provable.
> For only absolute power win absolutely.
Yet another moronic answer.
Something only POLITICIANs and other
scoundrels use to confuse the laymen.
This is about proving what you assert.
And proofs requires facts and acceptable flow
of logic based on FACTs...NOT on your beliefs
idiot.
> But when theist avoid
> question and discussion as a sign of respect for the Almighty, there is no
> fair debate. For we cannot win a man who refuse to compete a competition.
Haha.....forget about the theists...
Now you are apparently avoiding the questions and
discussions about YOUR own assertions by claiming
that they're based on your beliefs and "metaphors" which
has no relevancy in what is attemtped to be discussed.
We are talkong about YOUR own logic and statements
that you make....
Please prove the following statements are true:
>> something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
> >Wahhh...so cheem one lar...
> >But do anybody understand anything?
>
> If theists care to read between the lines to extract the meaning, yes.
Haha.....they can argue the same about YOU.....LOL
What a moron.
Thats what a discussion is...to make others UNDERSTAND
and agree with your views...not to give them PUZZLES
and ask them to try to unravel it themselves.
Its called PREACHING.....LOL
> Otherwise, they can always ask question to terms which they don't
> understand.
And of course you then AVOID answering the questions
by claiming that they are "metaphors" .in which case your
argument have no factual basis that you can present to
prove the theists assertions to be false anyway....
Please prove the statement:
>>If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
Don't AVOID the question and discussion ok....
I want facts and logical flow....NOT metaphors.
Who told you that arguments can be based on
metaphors?.....LOL
>But if they don't care to ask when they don't understand, it is
> not that they don't understand, it is that they don't want to understand.
Nonsense.
If a another party fails to understand....it may
also imply that the one making the statements
have failed to make their case.
Something you're trying very hard to make
it known to others....LOL
Alwasy trying to shift the blame on the other party
for your own inconsistencies and inability to argue
with simple understandable logic....LOL
> To
> theist whose world-view is to stick to a belief and blocking out
everything
> else, their unwillingness to understand truth will not come as a surprise.
Hey...that sounds just like YOU.....LOL
Please peove:
>>If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
Or are you going to be like what you claims your opposers
do when faced with tough questions....hide behind your
own beliefs and "metaphors"....LOL
>
> >Can any result be used beyond the scope of
> >similar minded people who actually take all the
> >assumptions you made as facts......?
>
> While we do make great presentation, we do not encourage readers to take
> them literally, instead we encourage them to examine the truth for
> themselves, to question it, experience it, thereby living in it.
This is a non reply as usual.
You are asked the relevancy of your statements
in real life.You apparently refuse to asnswer or cannot
provide one.
Thereby you use the SAME technique those mullahs
used by asking others to embrace your assertions without
any proofs and "live with it"...in whcih case any further
questions will be brushed off as the others cannot or
fail to understand you.....LOL
What a FRAUD.
> For facts
> are never a matter of beliefs, instead it is always of empirical evidence.
Haha...of which you have provided NONE
to support your statements...
Please show us scietific papers that proves
your statement like:
>>If something is not of God, then God did not create that thing, if God
> did
> >> not create all things, then the thing that God did not create, is
> >different
> >Or are you satisfied to live in a cave?....LOL
> >
>
> As long as we are with reality, we are satisfied everywhere. What used for
> the fantacy of heaven, if it is not of reality that last?
Hehe...you sound just like the mullahs....with
their claims to KNOW everything and provide
NOTHING.....LOL
Loga
"Liar..Liar" <ly...@ismytrade.com> wrote in message
news:3dd32442$3...@news.starhub.net.sg...
wts5409
overall sense), then someone should individually and en masse be
expected to excel in all normal human endeavours visibly as those
in the secular plane as well. To be less than so poses an
contadiction to such an assumption.
Put it simply in street language, it goes like, "If you are so good,
why aren't you more successful?"
Mahasanti wrote:
> The best religion has to do with the best management in
> organisation, but it has nothing to do with right view. The best
> follower has to do with faithfulness, but the herds of some
> animal and the ant colony are better followers, for they will
> never betray their own kind. And being a good herd has nothing to
> do with right view.
>
> Therefore, for the sake of right view, do not associate with
> religion and fellowship. Of course, if people with right view are
> uniting for a good cause, that is a good thing. Apart from that,
> good organisation in religion and fellowship are not different
> from worldly organisation and some animal kingdom, nothing is
> holy about it. They may pretend to be holy, but that is just a
> mask, underneat their doctrine, there are only worldly greed,
> lust, and hatred.
>
> - Mahasanti
fairplay
wts5409 wrote:
> If someone has the best organisation and the best followers (in an
> overall sense), then someone should individually and en masse be
> expected to excel in all normal human endeavours visibly as those
> in the secular plane as well. To be less than so poses an
> contadiction to such an assumption.
>
> Put it simply in street language, it goes like, "If you are so good,
> why aren't you more successful?"
How would you know if he is not? :)
wts5409
> wts5409 wrote:
>
>> If someone has the best organisation and the best followers (in
>> an overall sense), then someone should individually and en masse
>> be expected to excel in all normal human endeavours visibly as
>> those in the secular plane as well. To be less than so poses an
>>
>> Put it simply in street language, it goes like, "If you are so
>> good, why aren't you more successful?"
>
> How would you know if he is not? :)
>
I was refering to those who claimed to have the best organisation
and therefore within that organisation they should expectedly have
"the best" accomplishments including those at the material level. At
least something to show for as being the best. But contrary to
this logical expectation, , most of the time we find only the hubris
that is found in numbers.
A right state of mind is individually attained, not delivered en
masse despite the size and layout of any organisation. But lame
people can only see the power of numbers and thereby further
distancing themselves from the responsibility to think effectively.
The quality of understanding in a crowd is invariably reduced to its
lowest common denominator.
Observer
> The problems of impermanence due to causes and condition make organisation
> [in term of permanence], from the worse to the best, impossible. With
> short-sightedness, we might assume the ant colony is a good organisation,
> since all their workers are loyal in the level of biological instinct, but
> it is causes and conditions that make them together and organised, should
> the colony be poisoned by men, some poison rather than killing them
> directly, actually cause them to kill each other, thus by cause and
> condition, ant colony is form, by cause and condition, ant colony is
> destroyed.
Haha...wahhh...what a loooong sentence.
You don't seem to be able to present
your ideas in a simple and yet understandable format.
Why is that?
Is is because if you do,it really shows how little
substance your argument holds....
Can you explain what you mean with the above sentence?
Or is the sentence meant to be undecipherable for obvious
reason?
> The same apply to human organisation, like all sentient beings prior to
> awakening are motivated by the three poison of greed, hatred and
ignorance,
Are you stating this as a FACT?...LOL
> when in good times due to favorable causes and conditions, the
organisation
> prospers and flourish with increased followers due to the three poison of
> greed, hatred and ignorance, but in bad times due to unfavourable causes
and
> conditions, the organisation went broke, destroyed or overthrown, and the
> followers walk in separate way, or killed, due to the three poison of
greed,
> hatred and ignorance.
This is restating the OBVIOUS but using superfluos
language....
Is this your style when you communicate with the
lay people so as to fool them?
> For instant, the following situation might occurred due to the three
> poisons:-
>
> By mean of greed, in good times, for the sake of whatever the organisation
> could bring to them, became the cause of their unity. In bad times, for
the
> sake of greed, thus attempting to save whatever they would have lost to
the
> organisation, they walk in separate way.
Unproven theory at best.
Or an observation.
Which you dishineslty try to present as fact.
> By means of hatred, in the good times, for the sake of hatred for their
> enemy, people are gathered as an organisation for the sake of overthrowing
> the enemy. In bad times. for the sake of hatred for their enemies, people
> are killed and their organsation became overthrown by the enemy.
Stating the obvious yet again.
Superfluos yet again.
> By mean of ignorance, in the good times, for the sake of ignorance, people
> are gathered as an organisation for the sake of worship of deity based on
> wrong views. In bad times, for the sake of ignorance, people are killed
due
> to conflict arise from sectarian distinction and organisation overthrown
by
> sectarian.
>
> Although holy men who are free from the bonds of the three poison, may
> gathered to form organisation, they may be able to have a better, and
longer
> lasting organisation, but nevertheless due to the inevitable truth of
> impermanence of all composite things, which is formation, abiding, decay
and
> destruction of all compositions, even by virtue of the power of discipline
> of the sangha, this pureland on earth would not withstand the destruction
> impending the end of this great cosmic aeon, much less the average human
> life of the individual followers.
>
> Thus the wise may abandon all attachment of the transciend, and strive to
> gain liberation from the ills of the composed.
I believe you can go on preaching till kingdom
come with nothing much actually spoken by you
except meaningless sentences that has no practical
relevance.