Controversial Thai monk appears on air purifier advertisement

[hellodolly]

I am having a hard time reconciling the fact that he should have refused this profusion of donations.

How he had used them is maybe his fault, but if someone donates him a Louis Vuitton bag who is he to say no?

I would rather understand why apparently this avalanche of monetary donation which has little or no value in Buddhism has occurred.

Wouldn't the donaters have been better off spiritually to use it to help people directly? Why should in Buddhism it be targeted towards a monk or temple? Surely getting off your lazy ass to do it yourself has to be better than giving it to someone else to do it for you?

+1

[SteeleJoe]

HelloDolly.....

He is doing exactly what every other monk is doing, which is to sit there in an orange robe, and take money from people in exchange for showering them with good luck and driving evil spirits away...

You are quite simply and indisputably wrong in that sentence.

His eyes are wide open he sees what he wants to see.

I by no means am a Bible thumper. In fact I have never read more than 10% of it.

But does it not say some thing like

You have eyes and yet you can not see

You have ears and yet you can not hear,

Roughly that sentiment is in the bible a few times, yes. So what? I mean, no offense but why would you cite the bible in an argument with a non believer? It's not likely to convince him (or me) of much, is it? (I assumed you recall my previous discussion with you on religion? You seemed to ate some offense at the time, even though I was perfectly civil, at the fact that I had some critical comments to make and some questions regarding the beliefs of others...)

Truth be known if that particular saying had come from the Wizard of Oz I would have still put it up there. I live in the real world. In the real world there are a lot of things we have no answers for but that does not mean the questions are not there. Opinions there are plenty answers none.

Here is a question for you. You seem to agree with me that eyes wide open is missing a lot. Why does it bother you what book I got in my opinion an appropriate phrase from?

I just said the Bible I don't know which book it was in but in the real world I have observed it to be true at times. This was one of them. You are correct it means nothing to him. Also I was not trying to convince you of any thing with it.

Edit

It is true for me at times also.

* The "no answers"thing is something religious moderates use a lot: it make them sound more open-minded while at the same time allowing a reason for them to have beliefs that are unsupported by anything at all. It's a fallacy though: we have answers for so many things and virtually all of them contradict the claims of organized religion. The fact that the are mysteries remaining is no reason to believe something that some Iron Age desert dwellers made up to explain things to themselves.

* I made no indication that EyesWideOpen was "missing a lot". Nothing of the sort. My. Comment to him was about ONE very specific claim that he made which is objectively false. He seems to be one of those atheists who smugly dismisses all religions without sufficient knowledge them and who foolishly and arrogantly labels - despite a lack of ANY reason - anyone who questions their conclusions about faith or the faithful as a deluded believer. I've lost count of how many times I've pointed out the flaws in an atheist's arguments or the inaccuracy of his claims and the atheist has called me a Christian etc. Given that I have never been a Christian and have been agnostic since I was a boy, and absolutely reject all of the Abrahamic religions or organized belief systems, this is ironic to say the least.

* it does not bother me in the least that you quoted the bible and I can't imagine why you would say it did. I've read the Bible a lot. there's some wisdom in there (amongst a whole lot of really awful things). I merely pointed out that it was a strange thing for a Christian to introduce as a criticism of an atheist; it would have made much more sense for am Atheist to have used it against a Christian.

[kurnell]

How is he any different from a horde of yank evangelists? Or kiddy diddling catholic priests for that matter?

How is he different from 'diddling catholic priests'?

Has he been accused/found guilty of paedophilia?

Clearly not getting my drift are yer mate. Ethics wise sunshine!

....and monks in the news again today

[mca]

This chap is not entertaining. At least Benny Hinn can get morbidly obese people to leap from their motorized scooter chairs

I used to watch his show every week. If those strumpets who used to chase him around the park previously couldn't walk then it truly was a miracle

.

Edited June 30, 2013 by mca

[khaowong1]

How is he any different from a horde of yank evangelists? Or kiddy diddling catholic priests for that matter?

How is he different from 'diddling catholic priests'?

Has he been accused/found guilty of paedophilia?

Clearly not getting my drift are yer mate. Ethics wise sunshine!

....and monks in the news again today

What are they talking about today? I missed it.

[farang000999]

The newspaper should cover the good work of Father Joe Meier spending his life and work down there in the Klong Toey slum.

He's not a Buddhist monk . . . but then if one knows anything about Buddhism, most monks in Thailand aren't Buddhist monks either. They're Animists dressed in saffron robes . . . and their followers are also Animists.

This nails it. They don't even refrain from eating meat. Everything is spirits and ghosts and superstition.