User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 122

  1. #101
    Senior Member Scott N Denver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    I take it that Buddhist have to believe in reincarnation? (and thus need to 'stop the birthing and death' through nirvana) Otherwise, why dont they just kill themselves if they are so sick of reality?
    have to??? No, actually not really. BUt things do make a lot more sense, and there are reasons to. However, liek many things, without personal or direct experience with those reasons, its just reaming kinda "out there" and you probably either you believe it or you don't, but both of those are just "believes" and you can "believe" whatever you want, reality is at is.

    "If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things still are as they are."

  2. #102
    Senior Member Scott N Denver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Yes, but what about after? Its my understanding that Theravada Buddhism assumes that nirvana equates to oblivion, while Mahayana Buddhism assumes some sort of afterlife?
    BOTH assert "rebirth" [ie what most people would call reincarnation but buddhsim gets really finnicky about this an-atman or "lack of self" terminology]. As I understand, both assert other levels of being to which one can "go" between physical earhtly rebirths. But yes, Theravada equates liberation with annihilation ["its like the flame of a candle simply extinguishes"] where as the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana as well basically both say "wait a minute, you asserted that [all things are connected], but you only extinguished your little individual self, what about all that other stuff, or all those other sentient beings that you are "related" to, what about them??? Your little "annihilation" enlightenment/liberation is inadequate and not complete!!!" Like the Bodhisattva vow says "... I vow to master all dharmas... I vow to liberate ALL sentient beings..."

    So in short, both assert "after[physical] death conditions, and the validity of "rebirth." No differences yet. What they understand as "enlightenment" is different though, with the Theravadan view being seen as limited, incorrect, and incomplete from the Mahayana perspective.

  3. #103
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    I take it that Buddhist have to believe in reincarnation? (and thus need to 'stop the birthing and death' through nirvana) Otherwise, why dont they just kill themselves if they are so sick of reality?
    Couldn't you ask that question of anyone? (Unless I'm misunderstanding you.)

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Yes, but what about after? Its my understanding that Theravada Buddhism assumes that nirvana equates to oblivion, while Mahayana Buddhism assumes some sort of afterlife?
    This is where Buddhism gets tricky. The ideas that nirvana equates to oblivion seems strange if you're talking about a person. No one just disappears, and certainly the Buddha didn't just disappear when he got enlightened. If you're talking about the oblivion of THE SELF, you're talking about the dissolution of a conceptual identity: the ego, I, me, an idea you conceive when thinking about yourself. That makes a little more sense to me, but if you have a source that contradicts that explanation, I'd be curious.

    To say that Mahayana assumes an afterlife after reaching nirvana also seems a bit strange to me, because from what I know of Buddhist psychology/philosophy, nirvana is the end of karma, which means there is no more reincarnation. One possibility is that you're talking about a boddhisattva: a person who suspends their own enlightenment in order to help others reach enlightenment, reincarnating over and over. Mahayana Buddhist see the boddhisattva as an ideal people should strive for (and it kind of makes sense). The other possibility is that I just don't know enough to comment on this intelligently (very possible). LOL. Do you have something we can read on the subject?

    Edit: just saw Scott's post. Maybe that clarifies it.

  4. #104
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott N Denver View Post
    have to??? No, actually not really. BUt things do make a lot more sense, and there are reasons to. However, liek many things, without personal or direct experience with those reasons, its just reaming kinda "out there" and you probably either you believe it or you don't, but both of those are just "believes" and you can "believe" whatever you want, reality is at is.

    "If you understand, things are as they are. If you do not understand, things still are as they are."
    My point is about logic, not what buddhist are told they "have to believe" in order to be buddhist...

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott N Denver View Post
    BOTH assert "rebirth" [ie what most people would call reincarnation but buddhsim gets really finnicky about this an-atman or "lack of self" terminology]. As I understand, both assert other levels of being to which one can "go" between physical earhtly rebirths. But yes, Theravada equates liberation with annihilation ["its like the flame of a candle simply extinguishes"] where as the Mahayana, and the Vajrayana as well basically both say "wait a minute, you asserted that [all things are connected], but you only extinguished your little individual self, what about all that other stuff, or all those other sentient beings that you are "related" to, what about them??? Your little "annihilation" enlightenment/liberation is inadequate and not complete!!!" Like the Bodhisattva vow says "... I vow to master all dharmas... I vow to liberate ALL sentient beings..."

    So in short, both assert "after[physical] death conditions, and the validity of "rebirth." No differences yet. What they understand as "enlightenment" is different though, with the Theravadan view being seen as limited, incorrect, and incomplete from the Mahayana perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by xNTP View Post
    Couldn't you ask that question of anyone? (Unless I'm misunderstanding you.)
    My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

    Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ?tman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

    Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

    it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

    Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

    So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?

  5. #105
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

    Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ?tman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

    Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

    it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

    Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

    So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?
    You said a lot here, much of which I don't necessarily agree with. But I'll address your original question about reincarnation.

    The argument is this: if the goal is to eliminate suffering, wouldn't killing yourself be the easiest way? Since reincarnation would forestall that option, and since Buddhists do not kill themselves, Buddhists must believe in reincarnation.

    I believe the traditional answer would be that killing yourself doesn't eliminate suffering because it's a product of karma and it perpetuates karma. In other words, you destroy yourself out of desire (for the elimination of suffering) and generate more karma in your next life. So in the end, you aren't in a better position after having killed yourself. This theory does rely on reincarnation.

    But lets assume there was no reincarnation. First, most people don't suffer to the degree that they want to off themselves. They may believe there are less risky ways to find happiness than doing something so drastic. Second, while in theory you've eliminated suffering, you've also eliminated the opportunity for peace of mind. I wouldn't get hung up on the language. When we say Buddhists are looking for freedom from suffering, we're saying saying they're looking for peace of mind. Different words, same experience. Killing yourself prevents that experience from happening.

  6. #106
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xNTP View Post
    You said a lot here, much of which I don't necessarily agree with. But I'll address your original question about reincarnation.

    The argument is this: if the goal is to eliminate suffering, wouldn't killing yourself be the easiest way? Since reincarnation would forestall that option, and since Buddhists do not kill themselves, Buddhists must believe in reincarnation.

    I believe the traditional answer would be that killing yourself doesn't eliminate suffering because it's a product of karma and it perpetuates karma. In other words, you destroy yourself out of desire (for the elimination of suffering) and generate more karma in your next life. So in the end, you aren't in a better position after having killed yourself. This theory does rely on reincarnation.

    But lets assume there was no reincarnation. First, most people don't suffer to the degree that they want to off themselves. They may believe there are less risky ways to find happiness than doing something so drastic. Second, while in theory you've eliminated suffering, you've also eliminated the opportunity for peace of mind. I wouldn't get hung up on the language. When we say Buddhists are looking for freedom from suffering, we're saying saying they're looking for peace of mind. Different words, same experience. Killing yourself prevents that experience from happening.
    All makes sense, and what I was suspecting anyways.

    The third paragraph has some supernatural stuff. This is fine, but it again leads to the agnosticism problem of any other religion. I also dont think any of the reincarnation stuff would be compatible with christianity (back to the OP of the thread).

    The fourth paragraph might give a fine religion that fits agnosticism. However, its basically Epicureanism with more ascetic qualities:

    "Epicurus believed that the greatest good was to seek modest pleasures in order to attain a state of tranquility and freedom from fear (ataraxia) as well as absence of bodily pain (aponia) through knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires. The combination of these two states is supposed to constitute happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism, insofar as it declares pleasure as the sole intrinsic good, its conception of absence of pain as the greatest pleasure and its advocacy of a simple life make it different from "hedonism" as it is commonly understood.
    In the Epicurean view, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social morality that has survived."
    The main difference is that epicureans merely 'verge' on asceticism. The Buddhist, seem to actually go to full asceticism (do they?). If we are going off Buddhism as described in your 4th paragraph, why the meditating, why the karma, why limit yourself more than you have to if all you are trying to do is find a hedonistic absence of pain?

    In antiquity it was Platonism vs Epicureanism. In modernity, its Christianity vs Buddhism. Same religions, different names ???

  7. #107
    Senior Member ThatsWhatHeSaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    I think Scott might be able to shed more light on this, but I'll do my best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    All makes sense, and what I was suspecting anyways.

    The third paragraph has some supernatural stuff. This is fine, but it again leads to the agnosticism problem of any other religion.
    What's the agnosticism problem? Do you mean that it can't be empirically proven? That's true, but I believe a good teacher would tell you to keep an open mind but stay skeptical until you've verified it yourself. (There are sutras/discourses to that effect.) How do you verify reincarnation? I would assume through mental discipline and wisdom. Buddhist practice encourages a person to follow the Eightfold path. You develop a strong sense of ethics and compassion that is used as a foundation for concentration, which is used as a foundation for analysis and investigation ("insight" or "wisdom") into the true nature of the universe (ever-changing), identity (interdependent or "empty") and things (unsatisfactory). Collectively, they're called the 3 marks of existence and upon full realization, usher in peace, joy, insight, etc.

    I also dont think any of the reincarnation stuff would be compatible with christianity (back to the OP of the thread).
    If you accept that the core teachings of Christianity were mystical and that that core was subsequently adulterated, then I think it's possible to say that reincarnation is NOT INCONSISTENT with those core teachings. I realize that this is dangerous, since I'm not giving you a way to distinguish between the core teachings and the subsequent additions, but that's partly because I don't know enough about about the development of Christian texts. I don't know if anyone does.

    The fourth paragraph might give a fine religion that fits agnosticism. However, its basically Epicureanism with more ascetic qualities:

    The main difference is that epicureans merely 'verge' on asceticism. The Buddhist, seem to actually go to full asceticism (do they?). If we are going off Buddhism as described in your 4th paragraph, why the meditating, why the karma, why limit yourself more than you have to if all you are trying to do is find a hedonistic absence of pain?
    The word hedonistic is tricky because it implies, at least to me, saturating your experience with pleasure--food, sex, drugs, etc. This isn't what Buddhism is about. The reason isn't philosophical, but practical: those experiences are fleeting and don't provide long term satisfaction. Junkies and people who are overweight do not usually end up healthy and content. If they did, that might be a different story.

    However, the definition you provided, where pleasure is a function of the absence of suffering and suffering is eliminated through balance, friendship, and insight sounds pretty close to Buddhism.

    I'm curious...have you ever meditated? Even if you haven't formally meditated, you probably have had points in your life where you felt free, quiet, connected, and joyous. I believe that THAT is more akin to the Buddhist conception of happiness and contentment than gluttony and inundated your sense with stimulation.

  8. #108

    Default

    If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well.

    This is don't like, Buddhist or not.Unless properly explained it is a piss take.I am not going to
    go through the new testament and rip.The less wise, intelligent, located etc etc have an equal right to the expansion of knowledge.Maybe someone could justify it in some realm of reality but i don't want to know. It just takes the piss.

    I am not seeking to discredit Jesus he or his followers must be prophets of wisdom & power.
    The book is beyond the realm of a single man so possibly the statement has some hidden virtue
    in a cosmic sense but down here right now on earth it's a bit cunty at face value.

    There are also as you pointed out many great statements.

  9. #109
    Senior Member Scott N Denver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    My point is about logic, not what buddhist are told they "have to believe" in order to be buddhist...





    My point is that (disclaimer: I dont think anyone should kill themselves!):

    Hindusim: The goal of life, according to the Advaita school, is to realize that one's ?tman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul.

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Christianity: The goal is realize that you are a guilty sinner, and to beg for forgiveness in the hopes of either avoiding afterlife pain/or gaining afterlife living at all

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence.

    Islam: The goal is complete submission to allah (to the point that you are willing to die)

    you cant accomplish this by ending your own physical existence, unless it is in order to bring about the will of Allah.

    Buddhism: In Buddhism, suffering is meaningless, except insofar as it it exhausts bad karma. The principle aim of Buddhism is to end pointless suffering.

    it seems rather obvious to anyone that this IS accomplishable by ending your own existence. I know some people are going to say the Buddhists arent against life, they are just against anyone suffering more than they have to. This would be fine, but that would be classic epicurean (not the modern usage of epicurean), and not buddhism. Buddhist literally want to transcend away from anything worthwhile on this earth, because it might cause suffering.

    Buddhist live in the self protection mode, there is nothing that drives them to leave their little box of less suffering. Therefore, their main goal is just to limit suffering. Ending their own existence achieves this goal. The only way this would not accomplish the objective, is if there was more suffering awaiting you after, like reincarnation. Without a belief in reincarnation, wouldnt buddhism just be another form of nihilism? I mean any belief system that finds no point in living might count as nihilistic in some regards.

    So then at the end of the day, is buddhism really a middle path? Its either another form of nihilism, or its another supernaturalism religion that requires you to believe in reincarnation. How is reincarnation any more believable than any other deistic religion?
    Not to get all persnippity, but your logic does not concern me.

    "Zen is what happens after rational thought ceases."

    I would say that it is a fallacy of logical thought to believe that all things can be "solved"/understood/whatever via logical thought. Meditation is largely about calming the "monkey mind." Try following your thoughts, I bet it goes something like this "TypC, keyboard, I'm hungry, TypC, exercise, hot woman, mouse, monitor, I'm hungry, ceiling, etc, etc, etc. "Sure, maybe not those exact thoughts, but some other thoughts will surely stand in there place. By taming the monkey mind, one is able to better focus, and to have more "space" between thoughts. All the logic in the world won't get you that. Heck, it will probably just get in the way. Not to bash on logic or logical thought, it has its place and we Buddhists and others can do it too, but we don't solely rely on it is my point.

    IMO, Hinduism and Buddhism really aren't that different, well not at there top levels anyways. Which is funny because SO much of Buddhism was just a counterculture or movement against the prevailing hindu thoughts of the day. Think of Protestantism as a reaction or countercultural movement to Catholicism as another related example of that. "Oh look, you all believe in this "soul" or atman, well we're gonna snub you and say "no soul" or anatman!"

    Okay, maybe thats just being blabby and besides the point. As one who practices advaita-vedanta, the type or school of hinduism that you are referring to, let me say this: Discovering that your "individual soul" or atman is identical to the fundamental ground of being "brahman" is basically done by "letting go" of one's soul [well, more like letting go of attachment to it], which in my mind is not one iota different form a Buddhist going "I have no soul/'fundamental existence' and when I follow my consciousness back to its original source, I find only formlessness or emptiness or basic unconditioned awareness." Expressed differently, the point of both Buddhism, and Hinduism [and Taoism for that matter!, and others] is liberation or enlightenment or emancipation or discovery of what self/not-self truly is, or whatever you wanna call that. Physically killing yourself does not accomplish that in any of those cases.

    This is apparently pretty "out there" in the mind of your average westerner, but there are a variety of indirect and direct reasons that support or indicate reincarnation/rebirth. Put simply, when the rishis [seers] and others looked deep within their own being, they discovered imprints or impacts from previous births that carried over. They sensed this is in a very direct way. Certain portions of a person's being transmigrate from lifetime to lifetime, others do not. They saw that in a very direct way as well. Your average person on the street probably isn't going to much value or trust in this sort of "psychic" or "clairvoyant" "evidence", and in many respects why should they???, but these things weren't just pulled out of the air willy-nilly. One thing I personally like to emphasize is the following: EVERYTHING that gets talked about is something that, if one is willing to put the time and effort necessary for the training, one can "discover" or "investigate" or "verify" for ones self. We are practitioners, we *practice* these things. For us, this is NOT a faith, at least not in any blind or removed sense. "I don't need faith, I have experience"- wasn't that william james [19th century american psychologist]
    Also remember, that historically Hinduism and Buddhism obviously originated in asian cultures. In those cultures teachings/beliefs like karma and reincarnation are simply cultural givens. They weren't scientific in outlook and values in the way that out culture is here today.

    Also, note the difference between "I THINK committing suicide will end my existence forever because I don't believe in reincarnation" and "Committing suicide will end my existence forever because I don't believe in reincarnation." What is is, what is not is not, one's "beliefs" will not change something like that.

    Do I understand your point? Yes. Does it bother me personally? no.
    Its dangerous to apply logic in situations where it does not hold sway. Many things in life are illogical, or non-logical.

    "Why do you suffer?
    Because 99.999% of everything that you think,
    do,
    and say
    is for yourself,
    and there ins't one." Wei wu wei [I think it is anyways]

    the sanksrit term is dukha, usually translated as "suffering", but perhaps "non-contentment" would be a much better translation. I think it is very easy to misunderstand or misinterpret Buddhism, and goodness knows the translations of terms and ideas often don't help there. Also, people often see Buddhism as a "philosophy", and perhaps to an extent it is, but basically the Buddha found a way to enlightenment, based upon experience and practices not just mere rumination and thinking and philosophizing, and then taught a pathway or "vehicle" so that others could follow in his footsteps and replicate his accomplishments. If someone wants to understand Buddhism, go practice it, merely philosophizing and ruminating and thinking and logical deduction and whatever else won't get you to its goal.

    In one single simple sentence, the ultimate purpose of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and others is: "Discover the fundamental nature of your existence." Ways of doing that may differ, experiences may differ, interpretations of those experiences may differ, the value placed upon those experiences, the terminology used to describe those experiences may differ, all that stuff may differ. But the answer for "what are you, at your most fundamental level of being" is the same: undifferentiated empty formless attributeless consciousness, one without a second. But how does one describe that to others? What labels do you put on that that is without attributes? Emptiness??? formlessness??? not-self? self? atman? brahman? tao? kensho? satori? dharmakaya? suchness? tathagatagarbha? turiya? turiya-tita? Mind? Self? Buddha-nature? All of those, and more have been used, but they are just terms, just words. The experience to which those terms are applied is what matters. At the level of the fundamental nature of existence, there are no differences between, say Buddhism, and Hinduism and whoever else reaches this level, that I am aware of. Differences between Buddhism, Hinduism, etc don't show up until someone decides to leave a "method of training", and associated terminology, behind so that others may also peer into and discover the fundamental nature of there being.

    Beware of philosophizing where it does not apply. Personally, I really like Traleg Kyabgon Rinpoche's discussion of Buddhist ideas, and in particularly how westerners often misinterpret or misunderstand them.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Scott N Denver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    2,899

    Default

    Didn't christianty officially teach reincarnation until like the council of trent or the second council of nicea or one of those???

    gnostics sure take a different view on christianity than your average christian of today does. a much more mystical view. and THAT view is much more aligned with Buddhist thought. the nag hammadhi find, like in the 1940's in egypt if i recall correctly, most famous for "the gospel of thomas" if i recall correctly

Similar Threads

  1. Was Kurt Cobain the Jesus of Suburbia?
    By Blackout in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-02-2015, 05:23 PM
  2. Was Jesus Canadian?
    By Julius_Van_Der_Beak in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-18-2015, 02:52 AM
  3. What MBTI type was Jesus?
    By jixmixfix in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 10:44 AM
  4. Was Jesus white?
    By FigerPuppet in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 12:14 AM
  5. Who Was Jesus?
    By Mycroft in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 05:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO