Lenny and Carl. Who knew?

LMAO! Yeah, I know what you mean, Matt. But haven't they also attended the Reverend Lovejoy's church? I know I've seen them in the congregation.

I wonder if Lisa will remain a Buddhist? She has overall stayed true to her vegetarianism. And Barney has stayed on the wagon.

Part of the deal for Paul McCartney to appear on the simpson's ep were she becomes a vegetarianism was that she stay one. He didn't want to be part of an ep where it would just be forgoten the next week.

DON'T SAY THAT WORD! We are not discussing the blanks, we are discussing the, um, Beetles, yes.

Actually, Lenny forgot about the Super Bowl during service once.

Then again, this was the most intresting Christmas specials of all time, as well as having deep religious content.

Shurely you are referring to the Be-Sharps rather than the Beetles?

Really weird.

Falwell's a jerk, and he should learn to keep his big mouth shut.

While I do think he was out of line, didn't the people who rioted practically prove him correct?

Has anyone thought to ask why anyone over there cared what Falwell said. Yeah, he's a jerk. I don't pay attention to what a Hindu or Moslem jerk says about Christianity and I'm alledgedly almost sorta kinda Christian in a weird sort of way.

Berry, very good point. One of the objectives of being a confessing faith (i.e. one that has a series of doctrines and holds by faith that they are absolute truth), is the belief that other faiths contain a degree of falsehood, what else then makes your own so great then? So, just by not being Muslim, you are saying Islam does not have a tight grasp on the truth, or at least one that is inferior to your own. And Islam says the same thing about all other religions, saying polytheists are evil, and monotheists are ignorant.

FTR, Farwell also has had a fatwa passed on him.

Scott N: Your suggestion doesn't have good results. Either we all keep our mouths shut for fear of offending Muslims (Mohammad's conquest of half of Arabia is from Islamic Sources, and I am surprised it is not a source of pride for Moslems) or Mr. Farwell is responable for Indians rioting, and should screen his remarks to insure that Indians don't riot?

I'm not concerned about whether he offends Muslims or not. He's offensive in general. I refer to his remarks as reported by ABC News on 14 September 2001. As well as many other previous incidents, unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.

I remember that...along with a number of other "speeches" of his.

This...thing (won't call him a man).. must be skinned, tortured, hanged...


Basically, make him suffer as horribly as possible. Screw Geneva.

Or we could, y'know, prove that we *actually* occupy the higher moral ground, as opposed to saying that we do while taking actions that he wouldn't even dream of, were our positions reversed.

(Granted, this is coming from the person who spent an hour and a half today invoking various pagan deities to curse Willy Loman, because he took three hours to die in the film of Death of a Salesman that we watched, but at least Willy's not a real person.)

On Farwell in general: Um, so what are your feelings about the Prophet Jeremiah? One can draw from scripture that evil acts can cause God to allow evil things to happen as a form of corrective punishment. Farwell's remarks are not that far from any of the Prophets, Evangelists, or the words of Christ. Unless you are angery about him comparing the United States of America to the Covenant between God and the People of Israel.

CC: One does not lose their humanity under any circumstances (Save having less than 30 credit hours in college). No one can be tried for a crime that the state does not provide punishment for (Fighting words, Is the only thing you can have him tried for), and one cannot be given an unusual form of capital punishment.

Oh, since his remarks about Islam being violent invoked rioting and death threats, he is right on this situation. Fundamentalist Christians don't riot everytime someone calls them evil, and it happens alot. Jews don't start biting Arabs everytime Al Statea press call them Vampires. Atheists don't start fascist regimes everytime someone reminds them of Stalin.

Other MP: Laugh a little harder when you see old Gil on the Forbidden Show.

Frankly I have to side with Pesti here. I have not heard anything but garbage come from Falwell, but garbagee has every right to be garbage.

I forget who's proverb I'm quoting but it takes two people to insult you: An enemy to say something bad about you, and a friend to tell you all about it.

BTW, CC, Matt Patterson is right. If you really want to get someone's goat, ignore them. (Of course, who wants a goat?)

I do! Three more goats and I can buy a 10 year-old virgin bride.

So, it's not an insult of someone tells you to your face something unkind? LOL

You know what the difference between Jerry Falwell and Hannibal lecter is? The only foot in Falwell's mouth is his own!

There's an important piece of information missing from the article on the riots: Falwell didn't just say that Muhammed was a violent man (versus Jesus), he called him a terrorist.

No one's saying that Falwell should be held accountable because a protest in India got out of hand.

The issue here is one of sensitivity. We're living in a world where radical members of a religion believe they're being treated so unjustly by the world that they'll sacrifice their own lives to slaughter thousands of innocent people just to make a point. Today, terrorism is synonymous to evil. And when a noted speaker/leader of the "oppressing" group comes forward to tell the world he feels that their most holy icon is a terrorist, said speaker is merely giving the real terrorists more credibility... and those who didn't feel oppressed before start to wonder, "Maybe those radicals have something there..."

So, yes, Falwell as a religious leader and public speaker should be much more cognizant of the ramifications of his words. Not because something he says may lead to a riot on the other side of the world, but because what he says may influence another person into thinking the terrorists are right.

Darth: Having not studied Early Islamic History since, well, at least in five years, I do not not know wheather terrorist is applical to Mohamamad. Although your reasoning is faulty. Arabs are "oppressed" by no one but themselves and their leaders.

Dude: Other than one has never actually killed anyone?

I never claimed they were oppressed.

I said that they (particularly the radical groups) perceive this oppression. Whether or not they are actually oppressed is subject to debate and immaterial. Because it is the perception of oppression or injustice that is the root of the problem.

And I believe that active dialogue (in which both sides express their views) is a better solution than dismissive attitudes, finger-pointing, and labeling.

Darth: Okay.

Matthew Pesti: J-O-K-E! It was a joke! A humourous comment! A slam on Falwell's perpetual idiocy! An off-color, off-the-cuff remark. JOKE! JOKE!

In a story about abused children, Jonathon Delacour shows why I am no longer a Buddhist:

---

Quote:

"How would you like to be in a wheelchair?" I asked Ayako.

"I wouldn't mind," she replied. "How could I be upset if I'd never known anything different?"

"What about if you'd had an accident? You'd always been able to walk and now you couldn't. Or if you'd been born crippled, how would it feel to see everyone around you walking and running?"

"You don't understand!" she said passionately. "People have accidents or they're born like that because they did something terrible in a past life. They have to spend this life atoning for their sin."..."When I grew older and became too big for the tansu," Ayako added, "my mother told me that if I was naughty I would come back in my next life as a cripple."

---

With that logic, I must have done something REALLY horrible in a past life.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that if we did indeed all have past lives (and I don't rule out the possibility) that they'd have much, if any, impact on our current lives. And even if we did have past lives then how could we be sure that memory regression would show what really happened, anyway? We can't cuz it's something that's 1.) very unreliable and 2.) can easily be manipulated by the hypnotist doing the regression. That's often, if not always, a major point of discussion whenever someone brings up the past life topic. I was born 5,5,5,5 and 1 (1,000 points to whomever gets that reference first) with the worst physical thing with me being a low thyroid, which makes me lethargic sometimes. Later, I was in a car accident that broke my back but didn't paralyze me and I've got to wonder if our past lives determine the kind of person we are in this life then what the hell did I do in the past to warrant being in that car accident in this life, let alone the 2 accidents that followed later (then again they couldn't've been followed earlier now, could they )? It just doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm not sure it would even I studied Buddhism to any great extent.

Jwb52z,

You must have! You must’ve been real bad in a past life to be a Christian and not a Buddhist!

I personally don't believe in re-incarnation, but so? Does my non-belief in something matter to it (other than Tinkerbell)? Does pointing out that there are more people alive today than reincarnated souls can explain have any effect? Will it have the same effect as explaining to Jwb52z there is no Heaven because you must come back and atone for your sins?

It seems to me that being punished in the next life for transgressions in this one is rather cruel and unjust, because one doesn't remember what it was that was so bad, and thus cannot understand the reason for the punishment, especially if one is ignorant of the whole past life/karma theory.

Personally, though, I don't believe in any of it; no heaven or hell or reincarnation. I mean, why would you want any of that anyway? Why can't people be satisfied with the life they have on earth, and just enjoy it while it lasts, without making up stories about gods and the afterlife?

Because, if this life is all there is, then life is pointless.

That's a fatalistic view to have.

If this life is all there is...then what is the point? To live off your parents for 18 years, work your butt off so the governments can take half your money in taxes to fund their projects and then retire and wait for death.

But hey, if you think this life is so great, more power to ya.

I prefer to think of it to spend 18 years being nurtured and educated, work hard so that I can be happy, contribute to my community (local, nationally, and globally) so that I can share that happiness with others, raise my own children so they can make their lasting contributions, retire and reflect on the positive contributions I have made in my lifetime.

But, hey, if you have such a pessimistic attitude toward life, then I pity you.

Darth, that last remark could be seen as an insult.

I fail to see the insult. And certainly no insult was intended.

I feel bad for people who can't enjoy the life they live in. I don't think life is pointless. I didn't disparage anyone for having a different view or belief... it's simply a view I don't share and don't understand.

Yes, I understand that you didn't intend any insult, but the statement "I pity you" can very easily be construed as patronization.

I see. Well, now that I've clarified, there should be no misinterpretation.

Assuming heaven is made up in order to give some meaning to life, what's the point of including a hell, too? What does that add to life?

And if hell is real (as a perpetual punishment), what's the point of creating such a place, where there is no possiblity of parole, rehabilitation or mercy? (I was brought up as a Southern Baptist and indoctrinated with this belief, unfortunately - it sounds rather sadistic now that I'm out of that environment)

I wouldn't say that heaven was made up in order to give meaning to life. It's more like the other way around, if you ask me...

Rene: I ahet to say this, mostly because it'll likely get dumped, but your statement, IMHO, comes off as kind of selfish. I mean, so what if there isn't an afterlife? If you leave behind something worht remembering than your lfie was not empty, no matter how cynically you choose to view the universe. JFK, MLK, and Ghandi enjoy the best sort of immortality. So there's no Heaven. Does that mean THIER lives were meaningless? I wish I could remember the exact passage, but there was a scene in R.A. Salvatore's book The Cleric Quintet 5: The Chaos Curse which summed up my feelings about such things nicely. The lead character Cadderly tells the dwarf brothers Ivan and Pikel that he knows his dreams for the order of Denier (the God of Knowledge) won't be realized before he dies, but as long as someone in the future can appreciate, then his life had meaning.

While I believe in much more than existentialism, I do recognize that there is a lot of meaning that it can convey to a person's life. I just happen to feel that there are other things that impart more meaning to it. So I can appreciate both Rene's statement and Darth's And Brian's responses.

Let's just say that there are levels of "meaning" and many Christians feel that the deepest and most important are based on a relationship with God. And then let the discussion, which has become off-topic for Buddhism, drop.

Thank You

Since I don't believe hell exists, I can't answer your question, Nove. As for Darth's comment, irrelevant, so I will ignore it.

And Brian : You say selfish like it's a bad thing. What's wrong with being a little selfish? What does it matter if you're remembered or not? How does it affect me if people in the future will remember me? And will JFK be remembered say...a million years from now?

Rene: Fair enough, but I was thinking in terms of those important to us. After all, I "remember" that my family comes from a long line of radicals, dating back to the 16 and 1700s when they were involved in the early abolitionist movement, some 200 years BEFORE the end of slavery. And I plan to pass that knowledge on to my children, and theirs. If that ain't immortality I don't know what is.

As for Darth's comment, irrelevant, so I will ignore it. - Rene

But you didn't.

Love and kisses to you, too, BTW. *smooch*

A buddha is someone who has achieved nirvana and broken the cycle of reincarnation...so why do they keep talking about somebody being the reincarnation of an earlier buddha?

Another question--how far back to these previous lives go? The Australopithecines? As we trace previous lives into the distant past, does the karma built up in the previous lives have progressively less influence on the kind of future life we have?

If there are 7 billion people alive today and only a few thousand alive 70,000 years ago, what were those extra billions of souls doing 70,000 years ago?

I read Buddhism doesn't believe in alternate histories. Why not? It's really disappointing.
(Not that I should care... )

Could a person come back as an alien, or does that only happen with Buddhists living in interstellar civilizations?