Averroes wrote: ↑Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:00 am
It’s fine with me. As you are a hate preacher, I do not mind that you be offended.
As I had shown above, you are a hate preacher where you admitted you preach the Quran and Islam.
Btw, it has been demonstrated the Quran is worst than the Mein Kampf in terms of anti-semitism.
http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistic ... _Text.html
That too goes without saying as your stupidity and ignorance is too obvious. No one would believe you even if you claimed to be intelligent. I think we are heading in the right direction here. You are on the road to realizing the depth of your stupidity and ignorance. I am happy that this was resolved to the satisfaction of both of us.
In addition you as very stupid to think critique of an ideology is hatred.
Critique of an ideology is an intellectual exercise and more relevant if that ideology has serious evil elements like those in TROP.
Note I don't criticize Muslims even those who are evil prone and commit terrible evil acts and violence.
In fact I sympathize will all Muslims as unfortunate victims of their ideology.
Do Not Blame Muslims!
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24842
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:54 am
However such activities by the monks are not 'begging' literally as with beggars we normally see in the streets and elsewhere.
Buddhist monks behave like beggars as we normally see on the streets and elsewhere. But in fact, they are worse than ordinary beggars. Ordinary beggars, who are just poor people, I respect and care for. While Buddhist monks are just lazy parasites. It would have been better for the lazy parasitic Buddhist monks instead of begging and doing nothing all day, that they use all that energy to earn an honest living instead of stealing the real poor people due. So the label lazy parasites is quite appropriate for them.
Here are some YouTube videos which show Buddhists monks behaving like normal street beggars:
Buddhist monk begging on the streets in Japan:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNPGpWFfUZs
Buddhist monks fighting on the streets with their begging bowls:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyXEjHfRXNg
Buddhist Monks begging on the streets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zraYexbWqMs
Note there are lots of Fake Monks 'begging' on the streets and they have been exposed, e.g.
Fake monk: Buddhist crusader catches one on London street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5kyNU89zE
As I had stated the alms round which is seemingly 'begging' is a kind of ritual that is
symbiotic between the monks and the lay Buddhists.
Note here where the former very famous King of Thailand went on his alms round
His Majesty the King as Buddhist Monk on Alms Round during his ordination as a monk;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawFThXgES0
Do you think he was begging literally?
Note the term 'begging' was introduced by you in reference in your delusion I was begging you to teach me salvation. Then you change the subject to buddhist monks 'begging' during their alms round.
The Buddha was very dynamic and I don't believe the Buddha would condone 'alms round' in the current modern era.
Personally the act of alms round [confined only certain Theravada tradition] in the modern era by SOME monks should be stopped.
You still have much ignorance and stupidity in you.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:54 amIn this regard you are a munafig as Islam is worst where it is obligatory for all Muslims to pay zakat, if not they could go to hell.
Not all Muslims have an obligation to pay zakat, but only those who are rich. The poor benefit from the zakat. You still have much ignorance and stupidity in you.
You still have much ignorance and stupidity in you.
I am well aware there is a clause in the Quran for Muslims, i.e. perform up to the best of your ability and competence and Allah is the final judge. This will apply to Zakat. Therefore if one is poor and has no means there is no need to pay.
But the point is Zakat is obligatory to all Muslims subject to the poverty condition.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:54 amAs I had stated above, that monks going on a daily round of gathering food is not 'begging' in the literal sense of a bad conduct. The Buddha denounced bad actions and advocated right actions is in the Noble 8 Fold Paths.
Siddhartha was a beggar and the Buddhist monks who followed/follows him are lazy parasitic scumbags.
You still have much ignorance and stupidity in you.
The pros outweigh the cons in Theravadian monks going on alms round.
Personally such activities should be stopped especially in our modern era.
The above activity cannot be worst than the Quran condoning war, looting from non-Muslims which had inspired SOME [a critical quantum] evil prone Muslims to commit such evils.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:54 amBut to condemn the practice of charging interest [an essential element of economics] outright is stupidity.
I do not think so. I think that as you yourself admitted, interest/usury is evil and on this, we agree. And if one were not to condemn what one already considers to be an evil due to fear of the present economic environment, then it will be cowardice and hypocrisy on one’s part. I do not want to be like Siddhartha, i.e. rude with the weak but meek with the rude, and the latter is cowardice and hypocrisy. I think one has to be consistent. I believe that even if on an individual level one cannot change the current system, we have the choice on an individual level not to take part in it if we judge that it is evil. That is called moral integrity. My course of action from this moral judgment is that I do not take interests from banks and I do not engage in transactions that involve interests. That is my personal moral choice; nobody has forced me into it and nobody can force me out of it. It is my will which I have exercised freely.
You still have much ignorance and stupidity in you.
You are just following blindly a God which is illusory due to some active desperate existential crisis within you.
I did not admit usury is evil in general, I stated abuses, exploitation of extreme high interest is evil.
It is very dogmatic and stupid to reject the reasonable practice of interest in normal circumstances.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:54 amExplain how the denouncing of asceticism is equivalent to promoting sexual debauchery.
You are stupid. I did not say that denouncing asceticism was equivalent to promoting sexual debauchery. I said I understand that he would denounce asceticism given that he was promoting sexual debauchery. There is a difference. His denouncing asceticism and promoting sexual debauchery are consistent actions. One cannot promote sexual debauchery and also promote asceticism, that would have been contradictory. So as he was promoting sexual debauchery, it is logical that he must also denounce asceticism. If you still do not understand the difference, don’t worry about it. There is a subtle logical distinction concerning the order of the antecedent and the consequent in a conditional that is critical to understand the nuance of my statements here. And the latter might well be beyond your level.
You are SO stupid in correlating sexual debauchery with asceticism.
In general asceticism is practiced by living alone in an isolated area far from civilization to facilitate the modulation of one's basic impulses. In this case, where are the sexual partners for the orgies and sexual debauchery?
You are very uneducated and stupid on this, note;
Asceticism (/əˈsɛtɪsɪzəm/; from the Greek: ἄσκησις áskesis, "exercise, training") is a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from sensual pleasures, often for the purpose of pursuing spiritual goals.
Ascetics may withdraw from the world for their practices or continue to be part of their society, but typically adopt a frugal lifestyle, characterised by the renunciation of material possessions and physical pleasures, and time spent fasting while concentrating on the practice of religion or reflection upon spiritual matters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism