28 Mar '16 05:48>
Originally posted by FMFStop agitating, and ask a sincere question about true religion.
So what is your definition of rape?
FMF you have been agitating in this forum for years.
Will you ever tire from it?
Originally posted by DasaBrhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 describes rape. You also seem to have endorsed its message, so there quite clearly has been no misunderstanding. What is an apology/justification for rape of this kind doing in the literature of what you claim is "true religion"? Simply deflecting from this question with personal remarks aimed at me is not a suitable response from you on a topic as serious as this.
Stop agitating, and ask a sincere question about true religion.
FMF you have been agitating in this forum for years.
Will you ever tire from it?
Originaprovidelly posted by FMFIt is out of context you boofhead.
Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 describes rape. You also seem to have endorsed its message, so there quite clearly has been no misunderstanding. What is an apology/justification for rape of this kind doing in the literature of what you claim is "true religion"? Simply deflecting from this question with personal remarks aimed at me is not a suitable response from you on a topic as serious as this.
Originally posted by DasaThe translation of Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 you offered describes rape. What definition of rape are you using that leads you to believe that, somehow, Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21 is not describing and endorsing rape?
It is out of context you boofhead.
And it is translated wrongly.
I have provided the true translation...................read it.
Originally posted by Dasa1.There was nothing chivalrous about Kshatriyas, even in your own translation of Brhadārankyaka Upanishad 6.4.9,21. - Your justification for these rapists is shocking and shines a light on the imperfect and false nature of your chosen religion.
It is out of context you boofhead.
And it is translated wrongly.
I have provided the true translation...................read it.
In a bygone time, Kshatriyas could and did approach women.
And they were always chivalrous.
The verse that you are stuck to has been translated probably by an envious and hateful animal killing phsudoe atheist to corrupt the Veda.
Originally posted by DasaYes, it clearly is rape. Unless the woman gives permission, it is rape. Nobody else, not even your favourite religion can give the permission.
It was not rape.
Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman.
The women will always refuse to protect her chastity, .......
Originally posted by Dasa"Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman."
It was not rape.
Kshatriyas are warriors and they have permission to take a woman.
They never bash them on the head till dead, and throw them in a ditch when they are finished.
The Kshatriya does not approach the married female.
The women are always satisfied even when some persuasion is there.
The women will always refuse to protect her chasti ...[text shortened]... are protectors of society.
Go and research Kshatriya....................and learn something.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie you are just plain wrong here. Even the translation given by Dasa himself is abhorrent and justifies rape by warriors given 'unnamed' permission. - You really need to back away from this one. Even in context the verse and Dasa's justification for it are inexcusable and do not support the assertion of a perfect religion.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the forum because not a single person took the opportunity to attempt to understand the text and in obligatory fashion simply utilised it as an opportunity to pile on and put the boot into Dasa. How predictable and how banal. Never the less some points are worth noting.
1. Dasa may have a legitimate cl ...[text shortened]... he noble game in that the more one gains in understanding the less dogmatic one is likely to be.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs there something we don't understand with the words, he can beat the woman into submission? It stands as pretty clear even in the apologist version given by Dasa.
I must say that I am deeply disappointed in the forum because not a single person took the opportunity to attempt to understand the text and in obligatory fashion simply utilised it as an opportunity to pile on and put the boot into Dasa. How predictable and how banal. Never the less some points are worth noting.
1. Dasa may have a legitimate cl ...[text shortened]... he noble game in that the more one gains in understanding the less dogmatic one is likely to be.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeNo I cannot logically be wrong because I have not taken a stance either way. The things I have said are valid. Do you understand Sanskrit Ghastly one? no then you have taken it upon trust that the translation is accurate. It has also been taken out of context and isolated. No historical perspective has been proffered and instead the text has been formed into a cudgel with which to hit Dasa over the head with.
Robbie you are just plain wrong here. Even the translation given by Dasa himself is abhorrent and justifies rape by warriors given 'unnamed' permission. - You really need to back away from this one. Even in context the verse and Dasa's justification for it are inexcusable and do not support the assertion of a perfect religion.
If however you do ...[text shortened]... sking us to consider such is a nonsense).
Deep disappointment doesn't lie with you here sir.
Originally posted by sonhousehow can I explain so that you understand? Condemnation is easy but understanding is the thing to be aimed for because only with understanding can we make an evaluation.
Is there something we don't understand with the words, he can beat the woman into submission? It stands as pretty clear even in the apologist version given by Dasa.
I think he imagines himself the equal of such a warrior depicted in those verses and he imagines himself being in a position to do exactly that to women in his environment.
You forget his ...[text shortened]... a person?
BTW, there are verses similar to those in the OT so rape was rampant in those days.