Laozi isn’t the founder of religious Daoism. Religious Daoism started sometime in the Song, I believe.
Again, we live in a Judeo-Christian dominated world. If Buddhism had gone through the same schismatic processes and modes of proselytizing as Christianity, then the “popularity” chart would look quite different. However, the statistics on the chart don’t reflect people’s opinions of Jesus. The chart itself has nothing to do with the character known as Jesus. The chart only concentrates on the number of adherents to the major religions of the world. “Jesus” - the last time I checked - isn’t a religion.
I also don’t quite understand what being Christian has to do with being God’s son. By your reasoning Jesus isn’t the son of God either because he was never a Christian, and I’m not sure if he suddenly converted to Christianity when he “arrived at heaven”, but the latter occurring seems rather unlikely. Clearly, as Jesus is the precedent, being Christian is not requisite to being God’s son. So, you’re objection is misplaced. I am - still - God’s son. However, the point I am trying to make in making the claim “I am God’s son” is to show you that the claim itself is meaningless and holds no real significance in a debate over whose philosophies are correct, much less who would win in a fight.
You also don’t seem to grasp what I mean by “abandoning a life of flesh”. Buddha, during his life, turned his back on things of the flesh, and concentrated on things of the spirit and the mind. Jesus, on the other hand literally lived off of the backs of hardworking Jews: he ate their bread, lived in their homes, and gorged himself full of their wine like every other sensible and practical person of his time.
Mohammed would win anyway.
Buddhism is a proselytizing religion.
Emperor Ashoka sent out many missionaries.
And then there was Altan Khan.
Buddhist missionaries in China.
Modern Kwan Um Buddhists in America . . . . .
( If Buddhism had gone through the [same schismatic processes and modes of proselytizing] as Christianity, then the “popularity” chart would look quite different. )
Buddhism and Christianity have not historically shared the same modes of proselytizing, nor have they undergone the same schismatic processes. Moreover, no one, particularly me, has questioned the act of Buddhist proselytizing.
My misunderstanding.
Sorry.
If you mean a duel with swords or pistols, no christian would bother because we don’t want to kill anybody,and if challenged we’d say “Come and have a cup of tea instead, the kettles on and we’ll break out the Star Trek vids later”…
Check my “Stephen and the Hitmen” topic…
08.18.06.1416
I’ve tried to stay away from the Religion forum for a long time, but after reading this thread, I just felt compelled to drop the theological hammer (so to speak).
No offense Mick, but I think you’ve interpretted that rather poorly. One of the reasons I’m posting is because I hate it when people take ANYTHING out of context to justify their reasoning. In the NIV, John 16:33 reads: “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
John was talking about defeating anything… only overcoming the pains of life with love. But if you want my interpretation, this is saying that if you want to escape the pain of life, jump into the fantasyland of Jesus (the video game world of religion). Overcoming the world only goes as far as ignoring reality when it comes to Christianity… are you still waiting for his second coming Mick?? A thousand years ago, and even a hundred years after “Christ,” people were expecting his return. In another thousand years, there will still be people waiting for the second coming, but by then I’m sure they’ll be reduced to really small numbers.
I’d like to tip my hat to Faulty_Reasoning’s posts in this thread… Sir, I am deeply impressed by your nonchalant posts regarding Buddhism which acts as a theological chokehold on Mick… and how he has failed in his responses to counteract your wonderful observations.
In any case, I would agree with F_Reasoning… Muhammad would win, but only after a long final duel with Abraham. How’s that you ask? If you even scan through the first parts of Genesis in the Torah, you find that Abraham was one bad son of a bitch… you didn’t want to mess with him. While the Nazerene would be preaching love, his head would be loosed from his neck by a scimitar. Buddha would ascend and remove himself from the battlefield, technically not losing, but not winning either… (forfeit on the basis of true pacifism). Hindu dieties and the multitudes of other pagan gods probably would have a chance if we brought them into the discussion… the Aesir owns. In the end though… who’s to stop a desert merchant from raiding and massacring his way to victory?
Mick, you want to bring up that pie? If you were serious, those numbers mean nothing because if it were broke down into each individual sect, the Sunnis and Shiites alone would break whatever denomination you are… Honestly, would you team up with the Westboro Baptist Church just to say your god is better than the other religion’s?
ssound has a good point mick.
How can Jesus win in a duel, when his principle states, " if a person strikes you, offer your left cheek to him" If the person keeps on hitting Jesus, and Jesus keep on offering his other cheeks. Jesus would lose in a duel.
I believe the founder of a religion who wins the duel, would be consider the most evil person, and a evil religion.
I dunno mate, his post was too long and rambling so I skipped it, although I did get as far as where he wrongly attributed a Jesus quote to John before I pulled the plug 
Hey everybody, like I’ve said before, keep your posts short, witty and divinely entertaining like mine otherwise I won’t be able to motivate myself to read them, and shall go watch the Worlds Wildest Police Videos on TV instead…
Egocentric much?
08.18.06.1418
I love it how you avoid a debate by insulting yourself; and since you lack the courtesy to respect any sense of critical thinking, I won’t even bother explaining what you can never understand.
Oh… and as an observation, it’s so fascinating how you can tell what kind of person someone is just by what they watch on television. Knowing that you watch that kind of crap, it doubles the aura of hypocrisy that you so willingly envelope yourself into…
Sage,
That made me laugh.
Rightfully so, Mick is his own idea of a joke.
Can I exclude all previous post and ask why does it matter who would win if the founders of religion ‘we’re’ to fight?.. I don’t see how it’s relevant to anything. Maybe one of you can explain.
Dan likes to ask sort of nonsensical questions to see what kind of patterns we can get from the chaos.
THink of it as a thought experiment.
Oh shoo, I was just about to ask you why Nurse Chappell in Star Trek fancies Spock even though he don’t want her, huh there’s bleddy vulcans for you…
Alright, here is how this showdown would go down.
Moses, Muhammed and Jesus would go at it, and Moses would take a jab at muhamed, that would piss Jesus off, so he would say, “hey Moses, that ain’t cool.” Moses would then get more pissed and say, “I’m Jewish, and we don’t say cool, we say Kosher, that ain’t fucken Kosher.” So, Moses would slam Jesus to the Ground, and so Muhamed would then see these two going at it like crazy, and just order an army to bulldoze them and their mostly peaceful followers . . . . . . but at the last moment, one of Moses’ followers is still alive and throws a knife at muhamed and it strickes him in the neck, and he is dead.
All three of them died because they seeked to destroy the other. They learned a universal law the hard way, “when you try to kill others, you often kill yourself in the process.”
Lao Tze and Buddha and others like it, would think the war is lame, so they would go up in teh mountain, and though they wouldn’t win any battles, (which seemed pointless anyway) they win their lives. They always knew physical battle for prestigue is only for those who seek death.
So Lao Tze and Buddha decides that instead of yelling at each other, playing scrabble or dominoes is much more fun. 
IF you read the first opening post in this thread you would understand that comes afterwards.
Life is just a game, thank you for playing, game over, start game.
sirwedishmike~
That was pretty good, accept the beginning. For the rules states, it is the founders who duel founders, and followers duel followers. It may be entertaining as watching southpark, but the logic fell apart.
Lol, I’m sorry dan life is more than just a game to me.
get off your horse dorkasarous
Dorkasarous? Mature. Maybe we should post yet another thread about intolerance to one’s beliefs?