Kind of, beyond the fact that I don't espouse the "middle path", while condemning some religious beliefs and overlooking fundamentalism in my own religion. Being a buddhist, it seems like your priority would be to address buddhists who are preoccupied with demons and hell and the rest of what you would call mythology

No, you just say that taking the bible literally is 'silly' in one statement and then defend it in the next.

Like I said, you're just being antagonistic anymore. This has gone from what I thought was a discussion about things biblical to your telling me what I do and do not think.

And you accuse other people of being childish....

Fine, ignore all your unprovoked posts about people who intepret the Bible, about how literalism is a bad thing. Just make blanket statements and then get outraged and scream off-topic when people try to respond.

I'm not defending the beliefs, I actually differ with the beliefs. I am doing EXACTLY what I would be doing if some asshat ignorantly critiqued your beliefs for no reason other than to show how theirs are superior. You can say you differ, but the vibe here is the world would be a better place if people didn't narrowly interpret the Bible.

I tried to point out that humanity's ills occur with or without literalist ideas, and that there are peace-loving literalists who make the world a better place. You, of course, ignore that and complain that I am being argumentative and mussing up your little ego fest. Sorry.

Do I agree with Buddhist ideals? Nope. Do I have to in order to speak up when people start circling it like sharks to make themselves feel more "enlightened"? Nope.

I think Buddhist ideas of Demons and demi-gods and all that are silly too, but I wouldn't sit here quietly and listen to anyone whose beliefs are just as far-fetched pretend that they are more of a benefit to the world. All faiths are far-fetched, or else they wouldn't require faith.

I'm happy for you that you have faith that your god and his son will redeem you. I don't have that faith. I have faith of a different kind.

Since you have spent so much time attacking Christianity, what of your faith? Can you "defend" it? I bet not.

Hey Icon....your "Monty Python" is showing. "I believe we're having an arguement". "No we're not".

"I came here for a good argument."
"No you didn't. You came here for an argument."

]

"I came here for a good argument." "No you didn't. You came here for an argument."

Damn I haven't done any Monty in "years"! My cousin and I used to do them "all" from memory. Monty, Cheech & Chong and Bill Crosby. It used to drive our parents NUTZ! Our favs used to be the argument, crunchy frog by monty, sister mary elephant, and daves not home by cheech and Chong and lastly the chicken heart by Bill. Here's some site for Monty's words:

Link

Link

I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half-hour?

I got answers, but I had further questions.....like if it's the 'royal we' scenario, how come it's not used anywhere else in the bible? I even went to www,torah.org and asked a rabbi....but that ws on saturday, shabot, so I haven't got answer yet.

I'll give what I think is a valid answer: when God says "we" He is talking to Himself (or to the angels, who, like Adam, are sons of God). When he's talking to humans, he says I because he's not including humans when he's talking to Moses or somebody as he did when he was talking either to the other parts of him (i.e. Father, the Word (Son), Holy Spirit, which are mentioned in the OT as well as the NT) or to the sons of God, who were made in God's image.

Dharma---I have been a buddhist for 12 years...