Humans have choices.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
Then what is your spiritual message for all to hear.

You have been here for so long and have not presented anything, but you reject everything.

Present something.

Any fool can reject...its easy you just say no.

This is your game playing...

You say you do not accept Veda, but how can you reject Veda if you know not what it is.

This is you ...[text shortened]... turn out to be that serial debtor, then today shall be the last minutes I shall waste with you.

"You say you do not accept Veda, but how can you reject Veda if you know not what it is.
This is your dishonesty, you reject that which.... you know not"

You keep telling people they are dishonest.
It has nothing to do with dishonesty when someone rejects something without knowing all the ins and outs. One can reject intuitively or because one has enough but not all data. Sometimes data are not needed at all because it belongs to a larger group one already rejects in its totality on solid grounds. In that case one doesn't need to dive into the properties of that subgroup.
If I was a heroin addict and I told you how good it is to use it, would you believe me? Do I have the right to call you dishonest when you reject that proposal?
There can be several good reasons to reject a specific religion or all religions without knowing exactly what is written in their holy books. That has nothing to do with dishonesty. By labeling people as dishonest You make your own religion repulsive for the reader. And worse (to me): you are not helping the animals that way.... In your own language: you collect bad karma.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You say you do not accept Veda, but how can you reject Veda if you know not what it is.

I believe you are sincere when you claim that I do not know what Veda is. I also believe that you are sincere when you overlook the fact that you have posted more than a hundred pages of posts - which may well be more than a thousand posts - on the subject of Veda on this forum and still claim to assume that this has not contributed to my knowledge of Veda.

So I do not question your sincerity. However, in the light of what I know, from what I have read and from what I have heard and discussed with adherents such as yourself, I simply do not recognize or submit to "Vedic authority" or "Vedic teachings".

So there is the essence of our disagreement and it is clear. It also explains why we disagree about the purported spiritual connotations of eating - or not eating meat. Having said that, I fully support you in your lifestyle choices.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]"You say you do not accept Veda, but how can you reject Veda if you know not what it is.
This is your dishonesty, you reject that which.... you know not"

You keep telling people they are dishonest.
It has nothing to do with dishonesty when someone rejects something without knowing all the ins and outs. One can reject intuitively or because one ...[text shortened]... e): you are not helping the animals that way.... In your own language: you collect bad karma.[/b]

You have attacked for no reason.

Do you know why I am saying FMF is dishonest.

You dont know why I said this, but your presumption is in error.

To know why I have said this To FMF you would have to read every post that we both presented.

-------

As for others who I have said are dishonest, they are supporting the statement, that animal cruelty is not wrong.

Any one who says that animal cruelty is not wrong, are dishonest for saying so.......agreed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So eggs (which cannot suffer) can be eaten - yet one of your quotes seems to be against that.
And under the heading 'cause it to suffer' is milk. Most milk is produced by killing the calf of a cow, so by drinking milk you are causing suffering and death of an animal - yet milk is acceptable in one of your quotes.

Another very important question is if ...[text shortened]... fspring from causing suffering and death?

Can my cat eat meat or must he go vegetarian too?

....I wonder what your point is....
Kill animals as much as you like? Or should we develop some ethical standards. Should we try to minimize the killing of living beings who have an awareness of suffering? Where should we draw the line?

"Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."
Albert Einstein

Do you know if Einstein as talking about a positive impression and destiny, or a negative impression and destiny, when he made this statement?

You still argue that everything has a soul and meaning, even the sun; and that life exists there. But, then, you continually retribute that there are levels of feeling and sentient being, lots of which are not included or don't need to be on the humane level.

It is just so inconsistent, I don't think you have true knowledge of your own religion. Either that or it is crass, and inconsistent too!

-m.

Originally posted by souverein
You [vishvahetu] keep telling people they are dishonest. It has nothing to do with dishonesty when someone rejects something without knowing all the ins and outs.

But in fact I do know many of the ins and outs of vishvahetu's religion. And we must also remember that he has posted hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times on this public forum laying out the precepts of his religion.

So I am most certainly not 'pleading ignorance' nor have I been lacking in intellectual curiosity about his creed in the past. I simply do not share his belief system.

No amount of certainty and sincerity (or insult and abuse) on his part can affect this - and this is even truer when we bear in mind the volume of information that he has provided about his faith and the information about it that is readily available to those of us who are interested.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You have attacked for no reason.

Do you know why I am saying FMF is dishonest.

You dont know why I said this, but your presumption is in error.

To know why I have said this To FMF you would have to read every post that we both presented.

-------

As for others who I have said are dishonest, they are supporting the statement, that animal c ...[text shortened]...

Any one who says that animal cruelty is not wrong, are dishonest for saying so.......agreed.

Explain yourself in stead of denying what cannot be denied because you wrote it yourself.
You made it several times pretty clear that people who disagrees with your interpretation of the Vedas on eating meat (and other things) are dishonest.

BTW animal cruelty is not the same as slaughtering an animal or eating meat.

Originally posted by FMF
But in fact I do know many of the ins and outs of vishvahetu's religion. And we must also remember that he has posted hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times on this public forum laying out the precepts of his religion.

So I am most certainly not 'pleading ignorance' nor have I been lacking in intellectual curiosity about his creed in the past. I simply ...[text shortened]... ith and the information about it that is readily available to those of us who are interested.

My post was certainly not meant to call you ignorant on this matter. I apologize, if I gave that impression.

I liked V's first post because he tried to give a broad range of quotes from people who for several reasons dislike killing animals and eating meat. I regret it that he turned all the way back to the Veda's and tried to get it his way by insulting.

Anyway give you a quote from another source:
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.
Paul McCartney

And, maybe more interesting for you, Jerry Garcia became vegetarian two years before he died.

Originally posted by souverein
Anyway give you a quote from another source:
If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.
Paul McCartney

I have strong admiration for vegetarianism and most of the vegetarians that I have met. But my own periods of vegetarianism were, I suppose, political and not "spiritual".

Originally posted by souverein
Explain yourself in stead of denying what cannot be denied because you wrote it yourself.
You made it several times pretty clear that people who disagrees with your interpretation of the Vedas on eating meat (and other things) are dishonest.

BTW animal cruelty is not the same as slaughtering an animal or eating meat.

The Veda say that animal cruelty is wrong.

Animal cruelty is wrong.

Common sense tells you that animal cruelty is wrong also.

So I say anyone who supports animal cruelty is dishonest because no sane person could support that.

Why are persons supporting animal cruelty?

They say it is not wrong, because to say it is wrong would make them wrong....so they are dishonest when they say it is not wrong.

Because they are not being truthful when they say it is not wrong.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The Veda say that animal cruelty is wrong.

Animal cruelty is wrong.

Common sense tells you that animal cruelty is wrong also.

So I say anyone who supports animal cruelty is dishonest because no sane person could support that.

Why are persons supporting animal cruelty?

They say it is not wrong, because to say it is wrong would make them wron ...[text shortened]... they say it is not wrong.

Because they are not being truthful when they say it is not wrong.

"Wrong" is such a subjective word. Personally I would say that animal cruelty is against my moral code of conduct, because animals generally do not want to suffer, and through empathy, I would not want to cause animals to suffer. Animal cruelty is most likely to cause suffering.

I would say that is more of a precise outlook on morality than just labelling things "wrong".

Does the veda explain exactly why animal cruelty is wrong? Why does common sense say animal cruelty is wrong?

Originally posted by souverein
....I wonder what your point is....
Kill animals as much as you like? Or should we develop some ethical standards. Should we try to minimize the killing of living beings who have an awareness of suffering? Where should we draw the line?

I am asking where we should draw the line, and why.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
So I say anyone who supports animal cruelty is dishonest because no sane person could support that.

I have no reason to doubt that you are sincere when you claim that people who disagree with you on this issue are mentally ill. On the other hand, you are simply misusing the word "dishonest" because it suggests that I am only pretending to have no objection to eating meat. However, according to my spiritual belief system, I do not have any objection to eating meat. This is an honest statement. Clearly so. To call my statement "dishonest" is a misuse of the word.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
The Veda say that animal cruelty is wrong.

Animal cruelty is wrong.

Common sense tells you that animal cruelty is wrong also.

So I say anyone who supports animal cruelty is dishonest because no sane person could support that.

Why are persons supporting animal cruelty?

They say it is not wrong, because to say it is wrong would make them wron ...[text shortened]... they say it is not wrong.

Because they are not being truthful when they say it is not wrong.

(Animal) cruelty is abject. I don't think anyone denies that.
But what is cruel? We cannot be cruel to a stone; neither to a microbe. To a mosquito?
Cruelty has to do with provoking unnecessary suffering. That implies that the victim must have an awareness of pain and fear. The greater this awareness the more suffering is involved and the more careful we should act.

Originally posted by FMF
To call my statement "dishonest" is a misuse of the word.

He thinks you are lying and thus he has not misused the word. Whether he honestly thinks you are lying or is dishonestly claiming it is unknown.