"Tough Guy Straightedge"

in context with the jewish war 4 BC(alender) - 71 AD and the increasing need of the growing christian sect to distinguish themselves from the rebellious jews constantly fighting against the romans in judäa. because of their dogmatism and hostility against the pagan occupation the jews had a terrible reputation in rome - and the christians came in from the very same troubled province.
after the destruction of the temple in jerusalem many jews were deported from judäa to rome and the christians stood in rivalry with those small jewish communities refusing to adopt the "true and only faith".
and after the christians managed to find their role in the roman empire, it became obvious that the romans couldn't be responsible for the torture-death of "god's son" - so the christians started to blame the jews for murder - despite the fact that crucification was a roman maximum punishment used for public deterrence.
we already had the discussion about the historical (non)existence yahshuah:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4254&p=35299&hilit=jewish+war#p35299

 

i believe "No Gods, No Masters" means we do not make a god out of any man (e.g. boss, politician, ect.) I only think of the Buddha as another person, but who attained some respectable insight into our suffering as humans. This doesn't stop me from striving for social justice. For every time the Dalai Lama has lectured against monks protesting, there have been hundreds of thousands of monks hitting the streets

an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8888_Uprising

 

I thought it was cos they had no souls

There's this story of a 'progressive' missionary who said that the Spanish shouldn't be sending the indigenous Latin Americans down the mines because he discovered they had souls and could be saved. He suggested replacing them with Africans.

 

and for every other time he's saying how bad the gays are (oh, and afternoon delight too!).

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80[/video]

 

The Dalai Lama is an Imperialist, Gay hating, Religous Monarch. That is why I do not support Tibetan Independence because that would just make the Dalai Lama king. The Dalai Lama broke Buddha's philosphy to be against the death penalty and revenge by saying Osama Bin Laden deserved to be executed at the time of his death. The Dalai Lama also has ties to the CIA. In 1998 The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960s from the U.S. government through the Central Intelligence Agency, and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado against the Chinese. The Dalai Lama is also against Abortion which he calls "Negative". In fact most Buddhists think of Abortion as murder. Concerning Homosexuality and Bisexuality most Buddhist classes are against it. Chinese Buddhists, Japanese Buddhists, and North American Buddhists are pro-LGBT. There is not many LGBT Zenists because there is a lot of Homophobia in the Buddhist Religion. Some concepts of Buddhism have LGBT monks. Some concepts of Buddhism there is no god. Some there is.

 

the delayed lama is not the only one, i and a girl-friend were beaten up for kissing on the street during the 2007 protests by six monks in the grips of sacred furor, finally we were rescued by a patrolling MP-squat - o what a shame...

but his holyness real problem is, that theravada isn't the "right" buddhism, but it's practiced by almost 90% of the worlds largest buddhist community... tibetan buddhism is dominated by the Gelug school, which translates as “Way of Virtue”

lots of the virtuos' on the street...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Burma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Burme ... t_protests

 

So much for "peaceful protest".

 

thats religion - get a bunch of "believers" together, then wait for the true faith and the troubles to start...

 

How violent were you and your girlfriend attacked nike?

 

besides that we hardy expected to be attacked exclusively by the monks - they were pretty hard, two used their walking stick on me and at least three kicked me in every bodypart while i was down on the ground, they didn't even stopped as some bystanders intervened verbally in our favour - too bad that the monks are regarded as "untouchable", so it only ended when the armed soldiers roughed up everybody burmese close by and pulled us out of the crowd.
some cops took us to a hospital, we had a number of cuts and heavy bruises from the walking sticks, later an officer formally apologized for the incident, but he made quite clear, that non-burmese shouldn't mix with the protesters... and shortly after that the cops and soldiers opened fire at the people at several protests - i never felt so bad again for being between the sides of the front line.

 

I used to think all Buddhists were peaceful but not anymore, also Fuck The Police!

 

five anarchist points for this, Nike Mikhailowna, you really made my morning!

Summing up I think the straight-x-thuggs and the monks in sacred fever clearly prove that there is something seriously wrong with organized faith and religion as it's very base. I don't need a buddha or messiah to learn to question everything and never regard anything as "untouchable", the only limit acceptable to me is another fellow beings freedom and wellbeing - for as long as mine isn't touched.
bringing in some mythological legendary bigbrains telling "the truth" and being remote controlled by a higher being is devaluating our natural ability to think and decide for ourselves, we aren't little kids in need of explanations for the obvious or shelter from the dark.

did you know that shaolin kungfu, wing chun kuen and lots of other martial arts were developed and teached in buddhist monasteries and temples?
"Our" western view of buddhism is really kinda far from the eastern realities.

 

I always thought it was used for just self defense.

 

Indeed it is for self-defense, not really non-violent/pacifist with all these blades'n spears and sharpened farm tools very handy for the next peasant revolt, and as far as i remember it had it's historical origins in the repression of the peasants who weren't allowed to carry weapons by their oppressors - but it isn't quite the western image of buddhism as we saw it.
And kissing women on the street aren't really a reason for self-defence...

 

It is extremly fudementalist even catholic priests do not react with violence when people do something as simple as kissing.

 

i guess the catholics just became a bit more civilized since they lost their mass basis with the people - but just think of the centuries of the witch-hunt, or the birth-pains of laizist marriage, womens rights like abortion or being a single mother by choice - they just became more quiet and cautious - but they are still reactionaries par excellance, I would pray that they never regain the power they had.

 

Catholics are dumb. They are too fundementalist but on the other hand Protestants like the Klu Klux Klan are even more fundementalist and racist too, so all Christians are fundementalists.

 

since their numbers are dwindling along with their social and political influencce, we slowly gain "progressive" priests and theologists too - critisizing and debating almost every dogma the church is up to.
i would agree with the tawarishch commissar that this is just kinda disaster reaction to prevent the complete perdition of the church, resulting from it's fundamental distance from real-life and the need of the people.

 

well nike thanks for straightening that out for me concerning that protest, but I do not attend a temple and now I am persuaded strongly against a Tibetan Buddhist temple. however I still believe the following:

Inferences drawn from the Three Universal Truths

Buddhism is rooted in three fundamental truths of the universe, the dharma seals, viz.:

Everything is in a constant state of change, nothing is permanent. (anicca)
That "suffering" exists everywhere in Samsara. (dukkha)
That everything is devoid of a "self." (anatta)

Thus, there can be no "perfect State." Any man-made institution is impermanent as well as imperfect, as people and the world change constantly. Further, no material wealth or political power will grant people permanent happiness—unenlightened satisfaction is an illusion that only perpetuates samsara. Individual liberty, while a worthy goal for anarchists, is nevertheless incomplete, to the extent that it precludes our common humanity, since there is, ultimately, no "self" that is inherently distinct from the rest of the universe.

The Buddhist anarchist argues that both the state and capitalism generate oppression and, therefore, suffering. The former, the state, is an institution that frames the desire for power, and the latter, capitalism, the desire for material wealth. Trying to control other human beings, in the view of Buddhist anarchists, will only cause them to suffer, and ultimately causes suffering for those who try to control. Trying to hold on to and accumulate material wealth, likewise, increases suffering for the capitalist and those they do business with. Buddhism can also be viewed as inherently at odds with capitalism when the need to consume goods on an individual level is considered unnecessary and ultimately destructive.

Furthermore, I am even more thoroughly convinced that all organized religion can only result in the suffering and oppression of people. I just don't see what can be so oppressive about me sitting on a couch cushion in the evening to process my day, I suppose, and find inner peace.

Also, I do NOT support militant straight-edgers, that shit is retarded. Organized, militant monks are also retarded and I have learned alot on this thread concerning the Burma protests. Thank you.

 

there is nothing oppressive about sitting on a couch cushion (okay, except for the cushion may be) - the odd thing at least i'm stubling about is:

and we're just talking, giving arguments and counter arguments - nobody condemned you as far as i see, people just gave their view/opinion - i think there's nothing wrong with that.
and i just ask again: why do you need "three universal truths" to state the obvious we all see every day, why do you speak of fundamental truths and constant change at the very same time? there is no black and white, no incontrovertible truth and to to argue the converse is a dangerous lie or just a self-deception.
(take it as a declarative statement - not as a accusation against you personally).

sounds like a serious misunderstanding - i'm not struggling for "individual" freedom for me, i'm struggling for my freedom to become just one of many equals, smashing my personal cage which is the very same cage the rest of humanity is locked up.
i can't free anybody else, each has to free him-/herself - so the only possible start is me - the final goal is freedom for every living being. my freedom ends where others freedom begins - and i strongly oppose "individualist anarchism" which i regard as an oxymoron, because it only leads to another stage of injustice and inequality, maybe into a new oppression too.
i guess the "militant" straight edgers and monks are the best example how this "enlighted xxx/whatever" works if it gets enforced with something "above" every days experience - where is the difference between claiming "universal truths" and "the will of god"?
both are non-existant in my experience, abused by a group it becomes a dangerous lie - just take the "peaceful" early martyr-christians... 1500 years later they were sending off 6 million murderers of christ through the chimneys...