Posts by Reluctant Buddha

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Reluctant Buddha

Dear Tetrapod Sapien

Many Buddhas shall be visiting here, hopefully, not just myself. Log-in names and passwords are a wonderful Xmas gift for sharing with the dozens of ones online friends. Hopefully, many will accept the invitation.

Reluctantly,
Buddha

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Reluctant Buddha

Missing Links Disprove a Theory??? What About THIS One, Creationists!!!
	--vs--
REAL T-Rex		Creationist T-Rex

Creationists, aka the not-so-intelligent "Intelligent Design" advocates, claim that before the "fall of Adam" there was *no death and killing. Therefore, the T-Rex must have had cud-chewing flat cow-like teeth at the time, suitable for eating vegetables, rather than massive fangs, with are totally useless for eating grass and vegetables. That being the case, WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS WHICH SHOW THIS??? Where are the fossil T-Rex's with the flat grinding cud-chewing molars? If their theory is correct, there should be maybe 1,000 herbivore T-Rex remains to every carnivore, seeing how the T-Rex's wouldn't have become meat eaters until fairly recently, at "fall of Adam" about 6,000 years ago. That means there should be millions and millions of years prior to that where all the T-Rex's ate vegetables, and only a few years where they ate meat. So where are the remains, and in the proper ratio, that Creationism demands? Ohhh, they are MISSING, are they? Totally, completely, and utterly MISSING from the fossil record, are they? And you arrogantly MOCK evolution, claiming that ANY "gaps in the theory for which there is no evidence" disprove it? If that's so, then the lack of cow-like T-Rex's throws the ball right back into your court, you friggin' hypocrites. YOU made the assertion, now WHERE'S the evidence??? Thousands upon thousands of fossils have been dug up in the last 200 years, and not ONCE has a carnivore (T-Rex, Lion, Shark etc) been found with the kind of teeth your "Intelligent Design" theory demands. The FACTS show one thing, your FAITH demands another.

* From the #1 Creationist organization in the world: Answers in Genesis} People and animals alike were given plants to eat in the beginning (Genesis 1:29–30). There was no meat-eating before the Fall, whether by man or by animal. The carnivorous part of the present ‘food chain’ did not exist. And God appropriately described His creation as ‘ very good ’ (Genesis 1:31).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/bad_things.asp

5

PANDAS, PEOPLE, AND 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

by Reluctant Buddha in

of pandas and people by percival davis.

56 of 66 people found the following review helpful:no actual science to be found here!, december 20, 2005. reviewer:"satan claws' (hell, michigan) note: i gave this book, of pandas and people by percival davis, one star because the amazon software does not allow me to give it no stars.

as to "intelligent design" being taught in the classrooms of america, i have this good news: .

Reluctant Buddha

You're welcome to read creationist drabble. I spent several decades of my life reading that shee ite. Better things to do now.

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Reluctant Buddha

Star Moore, can you read? I must conclude from your response that you cannot, or you read without comprension. The point of the post is that:

1. Creationists claim that "missing links" in the fossil record disprove evolution.

2. If creationism is true, a cow-toothed T Rex must have existed

3. There are no fossils of cow-toothed T Rex

4. Fangs, which the T Rex possessed, cannot be used to chew vegetation.

5. Hence, if creationism is true, there must have been a cow-toothed T Rex

6. No cow-toothed T Rex fossils exist

7. By creationists own reasoning this shows cow-tooth T Rex never existed.

For the rest of you, my apologies for having to repeat and reword and reexplain the post

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Reluctant Buddha

Notice their nice big molars, just perfect for crunching vegetation! T-Rex would have had a hard time with a dinner salad, but gorillas have it under control.

SNG

SNG I am unsure of the point and purpose of your post. Yes, a T Rex would be unable to eat a salad which is precisely the point. Their teeth are for tearing meat. Plus you are ignoraing the point of the post; that fossils of cow-toothed T-Rex are nonexistant. Creationists argue thet missing links prove evolution false, but they do not understand their theory has millions upon millions of missings links.

5

PANDAS, PEOPLE, AND 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN"

by Reluctant Buddha in

of pandas and people by percival davis.

56 of 66 people found the following review helpful:no actual science to be found here!, december 20, 2005. reviewer:"satan claws' (hell, michigan) note: i gave this book, of pandas and people by percival davis, one star because the amazon software does not allow me to give it no stars.

as to "intelligent design" being taught in the classrooms of america, i have this good news: .

Reluctant Buddha

OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE by Percival Davis

56 of 66 people found the following review helpful:NO ACTUAL SCIENCE TO BE FOUND HERE!, December 20, 2005

Reviewer:

"Satan Claws' (Hell, Michigan)

Note: I gave this book, Of Pandas and People by Percival Davis, one star because the Amazon software does not allow me to give it no stars.

As to "Intelligent Design" being taught in the classrooms of America, I have this good news:

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled that the Dover Area school board of Pennsylvania could not teach "Intelligent Design" in its school curriculum, pointing out it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback for the not-so-intelligent "intelligent design" deceivers. The "ID" deceivers are also waging war against science in Georgia and Kansas. Judge Jones pointed out the "breathtaking inanity" of the Dover school "ID" curriculum and reprimanded three board members because they lied to conceal the fact that their actual motive was to push religion disguised as science onto the American public. Judge Jones stated there is overwhelming evidence that "Intelligent Design" is nothing more than so-called "scientific creationism" relabeled to hide it's actual religious nature.

Judge Jones stated: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom." Judge Jones also said: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy." I am well acquainted with the fundiot practice of "lying for the truth" which these enemies of truth and science engage in. It's a symptom of their cheap grace, easy believism, and their meme-infected minds. They believe that good works such as being honest and having integrity have nothing to do with their "salvation" so they have no qualms about lying for Jesus.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that the various States of the Union couldn't force public schools to teach creationism, a ruling the Dover school board ignored. Our Presiding Idiot, George "Dubya" Bush, has revealed what a completely ignorant bonehead he really is by recently endorsing "intelligent design."

We can all breathe a little easier knowing the anti-science Fundie Monster has been dropkicked, for the time being, back into the Dark Ages from whence it slithered. I do not, for even a nanosecond, recommend Of Pandas and People to the reader. I encourage the reader to pass this bit of pseudo-science up and instead read all about the flying spaghetti monster.

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Reluctant Buddha

Missing Links Disprove a Theory??? What About THIS One, Creationists!!!
	--vs--
REAL T-Rex		Creationist T-Rex

Creationists, aka the not-so-intelligent "Intelligent Design" advocates, claim that before the fall of Adam & Eve there was no death and killing. Therefore, the T-Rex must have had cud-chewing flat cow-like teeth at the time, suitable for eating vegetables, rather than massive fangs, with are totally useless for eating grass and vegetables. That being the case, WHERE IS THE FOSSIL CUD-CHEWING T-REX with the flat grinding cud-chewing molars? Ohhh, they are MISSING, are they? Totally, completely, and utterly MISSING from the fossil record, are they? And you arrogantly MOCK evolution, claiming that ANY "gaps in the theory for which there is no evidence" disprove it? If that's so, then the lack of cow-like T-Rex's throws the ball right back into your court, you friggin' hypocrites. YOU made the assertion, now WHERE'S the evidence??? Thousands upon thousands of fossils have been dug up in the last 200 years, and not ONCE has a carnivore (t-Rex, lion, tiger, shark, wolf, bear, etc) been found with the kind of teeth your "Intelligent Design" theory demands.

NEENER NEENER NEERNER! Jesus is a BEANER!

16

Need for an org and need to be judged by one's works

by karola in

i need some help reaching a friend regarding the faults of the society and the control they have over us.

i keep stressing that the nt insists that salvation is by faith and not by works and that those under works of law are in fact under a curse.

(see gal 3:10-11 and romans 3:20-24).

Reluctant Buddha

Greetings karola. I am in agreement with you that no one needs an organization in their life. I must disagree with the popular notion that positive kamma is not necessary for what you refer to as "salvation." I meet many here in USA that swear, gamble, abuse their bodies with various substances, lie, cheat, steal, commit many sexual transgressions, yet they think nothing of it. They have explained to me a strange doctrine of a legal Tribunal in another dimension. In this other dimension, the God of the Christian has carried out legal proceedings as a Judge. The Satan of evil has acquired the race of man, and somehow the suffering and death of the Teacher Jesus paid the ransom which the Satan demanded, and the race of man now belongs to Jesus Christ. Somehow, this means that no one needs to become clean in thought, speech, action, intent.
One who believes in the Jesus Tribunal in the other dimension need only "believe" this Tribunal has occured, and that one has been bought back to Jesus Christ by the actions of this Tribunal, and "salvation" is assured. Positive kamma is antithetical to this Tribunal having it's desired effect by blocking the effects of this Tribunal. Those who construct such notions of events in other dimensions and use them to evade both responsibility and consequences of their thoughts, speech, actions, and intentions, are misguided.

44

Regarding the holy Trinity

by kristiano1122 in

i want to know why jw dont accept the holy trinity even though there is enough biblical evidence in the bible regarding this.

the following passages are from the book of john .

1:1. in the beginning was the word: and the word was with god: and the word was god.

Reluctant Buddha

Greetings. It has been my experience that believing in the trinity doctrine has the same effect as not believing in the trinity doctrine, and for that matter it is the same as never having heard of the trinity doctrine. No one has ever ceased suffering by believing in a trinity doctrine, no one has ever ceased suffering by not believing in a trinity doctrine, and no one has ever ceased suffering by never having heard of a trinity doctrine. Belief in metaphysical constructs that cannot be demonstrated to exist anywhere except in the minds of those who believe has no effect on reducing or eliminating one's suffering.
However, it is easy to demonstrate historically that belief in a trinity has brought great suffering and death to many, just as not believing in a trinity has brought great suffering and death to many. Wars of Christians, in which Christians kill other Christians for either believing or not believing in a trinity are very real, unlike the trinity dogma itself, which cannot be demonstrated to have an objective existence. One who wishes to reduce and eliminate suffering in their life would do well to not engage in constructing unproveable notions and then believing in the notion one has constructed, or was constructed by someone else.
Buddhism is not about a trinity or a lack of a trinity. Buddhism is about suffering. Buddhism is the path to cessation of suffering. Suffering is a fact of life, it is not an abstract construct as is a trinity. Certainly, though Americans of the USA have been sheltered from much of suffering, it cannot be escaped entirely. Even the youngest, healthiest, wealthiest among the Americans, they too know the reality of suffering. Or soon shall. It is inevitable.
I have never met a trinity, but suffering I know.

Reluctantly,
Buddha

1

A very short meditation on Karma

by Reluctant Buddha in

here is a very short meditation on karma, which in pali is kamma.

reluctantly, buddha.

karma is one of those words buddhists do not translate.

Reluctant Buddha

Here is a very short meditation on Karma, which in Pali is Kamma. Reluctantly, Buddha

Karma is one of those words Buddhists do not translate. Its basic meaning is simple enough — action — but because of the weight the Buddha's teachings give to the role of action, the Sanskrit word karma packs in so many implications that the English word action can't carry all its luggage. This is why we've simply airlifted the original word into our vocabulary.

But when we try unpacking the connotations the word carries now that it has arrived in everyday usage, we find that most of its luggage has gotten mixed up in transit. In the eyes of most Americans, karma functions like fate — bad fate, at that: an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. "I guess it's just my karma," I've heard people sigh when bad fortune strikes with such force that they see no alternative to resigned acceptance. The fatalism implicit in this statement is one reason why so many of us are repelled by the concept of karma, for it sounds like the kind of callous myth-making that can justify almost any kind of suffering or injustice in the status quo: "If he's poor, it's because of his karma." "If she's been raped, it's because of her karma." From this it seems a short step to saying that he or she deserves to suffer, and so doesn't deserve our help.

This misperception comes from the fact that the Buddhist concept of karma came to the West at the same time as non-Buddhist concepts, and so ended up with some of their luggage. Although many Asian concepts of karma are fatalistic, the early Buddhist concept was not fatalistic at all. In fact, if we look closely at early Buddhist ideas of karma, we'll find that they give even less importance to myths about the past than most modern Americans do.

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. This constant opening for present input into the causal process makes free will possible. This freedom is symbolized in the imagery the Buddhists used to explain the process: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback loop going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.

This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful intentions.

We read the early Buddhist attacks on the caste system, and aside from their anti-racist implications, they often strike us as quaint. What we fail to realize is that they strike right at the heart of our myths about our own past: our obsession with defining who we are in terms of where we come from — our race, ethnic heritage, gender, socio-economic background, sexual preference — our modern tribes. We put inordinate amounts of energy into creating and maintaining the mythology of our tribe so that we can take vicarious pride in our tribe's good name. Even when we become Buddhists, the tribe comes first. We demand a Buddhism that honors our myths.

From the standpoint of karma, though, where we come from is old karma, over which we have no control. What we "are" is a nebulous concept at best — and pernicious at worst, when we use it to find excuses for acting on unskillful motives. The worth of a tribe lies only in the skillful actions of its individual members. Even when those good people belong to our tribe, their good karma is theirs, not ours. And, of course, every tribe has its bad members, which means that the mythology of the tribe is a fragile thing. To hang onto anything fragile requires a large investment of passion, aversion, and delusion, leading inevitably to more unskillful actions on into the future.

So the Buddhist teachings on karma, far from being a quaint relic from the past, are a direct challenge to a basic thrust — and basic flaw — in our culture. Only when we abandon our obsession with finding vicarious pride in our tribal past, and can take actual pride in the motives that underlie our present actions, can we say that the word karma, in its Buddhist sense, has recovered its luggage. And when we open the luggage, we'll find that it's brought us a gift: the gift we give ourselves and one another when we drop our myths about who we are, and can instead be honest about what we're doing with each moment — at the same time making the effort to do it right.