Thoughts on Buddhism

[Carnavon]

I would like to reply to that first statement before I state my views on the other issue.
I can't help but feel if this God cared about whether who he was killing was evil or not he wouldn't kill "Egypts first born". Little bit near the knuckle don't you think? Its not even the only example of its kind. Do you honestly think thats "righteous wrath"? Take away the divine powers and its just Kim Jong-Il on Red Bull.

In the first instance the question is then : What is the basis for judgement of what is evil? Is there an absolute truth of good and evil and how is it arrived at? If there is no “truth”, then discussion is “I like vanilla and you like chocolate”. With this information, we can then proceed and evaluate “killing the first borns” etc.
The second issue is also the degree of "punishment" for evil. It is hopefully agreed that wrongs should be punished in some way. My personal opinion is that death in itself is no punishment as that is the way of nature. The real issue is what happens to a person after death - as that is eternal. Mar 8:37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
To me the question is then: Am I ready to die today - by whatever means - car accident, heart attack or whatever.

As for Abrahamic religions renouncing anyone who doesn't agree entirely, I think those religions just take their holy book literally to the nth term and refuse to cover it up. Its not like it isn't authorized by The Bible if you read it, infact being renounced is getting off lightly if you go by those standards.
Take it literally then Fred Phelps was well within his rights to do what he did. In his distorted view he was saving people from going to hell and there was nothing in there to say otherwise. On the contrary, he found plenty to support him. Of course most of us know he was a deeply vile individual but its not hard to see where he got his ideas from.

I would be happy if you could substantiate the claims made by evidence and not mere speculation. Again, I wish to remind you that it is not what individuals (or groups of individuals) do, but an orientation “prescribed” in the Bible. That God acts against his enemies is not disputed, as I have said before. The issue at stake here is how are supposed to treat others of different persuasions.(Abrahamic religions that renounce anyone who refuses to climb on board as being a 'worthless heathen' unworthy of respect)

Let us consider what the Bible for instance says (and I did not “handpick these for a specific orientation and used “enemy” as a "party strongly opposed")
Exo 23:4 If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again.
Exo 23:5 If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, and wouldest forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Rom 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Coming down to the essence of the issue, it is not to claim a higher moral ground or “superior lifestyle”. I initially responded because “clichés” develop which is totally false and misrepresent the message of the Bible and is often accepted without question.

This thread is actually about Buddhism and maybe we should continue this discussion under another thread.