10 Dec 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou are bound to lose in either case. So according to your philosophy, god says it's ok for mankind to cause mass extinctions, if we can do it, why can't the planet fight back and knock us on our collective assses? To a point where there are no humans left anywhere. Why don't christians worry about that?
well that just the thing, i have faith that God has carried out promises in the past and will do so again, as for turkey and chicken, i never really liked them, i am more a veg head, although i will eat meat if forced. It seems to me that it comes down to what is the more plausible solution, waiting on humankind or waiting on God?
Also, if there are no humans left anywhere in the solar system, is there still a god?
10 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhousenothing could be further from the truth, where did i state that my God does not care about the environment, he gave Adam and Eve a mandate to look after and take care of it did he not? to look after it , to cultivate it and extend the paradisiac conditions earth wide. He has provided details that he shall bring to account those who are ruining the earth, did he not? then why are you know stating that he feels that its acceptable for the delicate ecosystems to be destroyed? did he not create them for a purpose and an intent with beauty and intelligence ? would you like it if someone destroyed a composition that you had worked upon? why don't i worry about it, because i am confident that my God will not let it be destroyed beyond its capability to replenish itself. If you have another solution, then let it be heard.
You are bound to lose in either case. So according to your philosophy, god says it's ok for mankind to cause mass extinctions, if we can do it, why can't the planet fight back and knock us on our collective assses? To a point where there are no humans left anywhere. Why don't christians worry about that?
Also, if there are no humans left anywhere in the solar system, is there still a god?
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothYou are certainly digging around to find some fault, where there is no fault.
So your children never knew - and still don't know - that your core belief with regard to them was "If they die tomorrow, it won't upset me in the slightest"? all along, from when they were born, up to and since they moved away.
You withheld the details of your faith - a central tenet of your faith - from them? You regale strangers on the internet w ...[text shortened]... "
You are saying one thing in one post and then something else in another.[/b]
I dont sit my children down like in school, and teach them Vedanta Sutra.
I said when they make inquiry about the teachings I will explain it to them, and I will use a different manner of talk as well.
This is the responsibility of the parent, to acknowledge the spiritual inquiry of the child when the time comes, and to give the truth of the matter.....and not present false teachings that the atheistic world is offering.
My children dont live at home and live their own lives, but when they were at home, I explained the truth about God and the spiritual life when they approached me.
Who can say they can give their children the truth of the spiritual life, when the child seeks to know....... practically no one, and they present their children with either false religion, or atheistic teachings which is child abuse.
Iam never upset, with the hearing of the death of anybody......because there are two things in life that you can be sure of.... (death and taxes) and the person doesn't actually die, its an illusion. (the soul is indestructible)....and you should know this.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by AgergI think it has both good and bad aspects. I think Dawkins highlighted for me some of the less desirable aspects that I had underestimated or overlooked.
I don't see it as an intrinsically bad thing .....
but I argue perhaps that a "healthy" majority of moderates; though they legitimise (indirectly) their fundamentalist counterparts, they also serve to marginalise their outrageous beliefs by virtue of an otherwise rational mindset; i.e. inspite of "God" belief they still accept the crucial elements of science, and would promote (as opposed to stifle) healthy education for future generations.
I am not sure what you are arguing. Are you saying that given x number of fundamentalists, it is better to have y number of moderates to help marginalize them rather than every non fundamentalist be atheist? If so, I disagree. Religions which consist almost entirely of fundamentalists don't last long. It is the moderates that keep a religion and fundamentalism alive.
Are you saying you'd rather people be moderates than fundamentalist, then I agree.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuDigging around? I am responding plainly to assertions and posts you have made on a public forum. You have made statements that bring child abuse, lack of parental responsibility and suicidal tendencies to mind, among other things - including charlatanism and possibly clinical depression and/or some kind of convoluted death cult thing. So I have been seeking clarification from you using straight forward quotes from your posts. No digging. Just standard public forum interaction.
You are certainly digging around to find some fault, where there is no fault.
So far I have found that there is something deeply inconsistent in what you are saying - that you claim to be perhaps the only person on this board who is fit to be a father because you teach your children your "spiritual principles" but when pressed on this you claim that you don't teach your children your "spiritual principles" and you keep some core beliefs secret, or you only teach your children "spiritual principles" when asked about them.
Digging around to find some fault? Paranoia on your part is not going to solve the problem of the incoherence of your stance on 'fit parenthood'.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothI will tell you a simple truth:
Digging around? I am responding plainly to assertions and posts you have made on a public forum. You have made statements that bring child abuse, lack of parental responsibility and suicidal tendencies to mind, among other things - including charlatanism and possibly clinical depression and/or some kind of convoluted death cult thing. So I have been see ...[text shortened]... s not going to solve the problem of the incoherence of your stance on 'fit parenthood'.
If you instruct any person, even your own child in your care against their will, they will close themselves off to you and become firmly fixed in opposition against you.
With children (especially in this age of Kali Yuga) ....you must let them approach you, when the time of questioning the life around them arises, and it will arise, especially when they grow up in a home with the spiritual atmosphere.
All children reach that age when they question many things, and at that time you must give them proper instruction based on truth. (Vedanta Sutra)
And you must bring the children up in a spiritual environment, of no meat eating, no intoxication or drugs, no illicit sex, no gambling and a pleasant peaceful atmosphere, where the children can observe the benefits of spiritual living....this is the best way to instruct the child by example.
The children will always ask about the spiritual practices that they observe in the home, and its at this time you give then instruction when they inquire, and at no time do you force them to take instruction.
We find in todays society that the parents teach their children false religion (forcibly) and if they are atheists they teach them they exist because of a random accident that took place a long time ago, and they are descendants of apes. (this is child abuse) and definitely lack of parental responsibility.
And i dont know how your mind has come up with words like 'death cults' "suicidal tendencies" "clinical depression' "charlatanism".....this sounds like digging to me.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuIt was when you said "if [my children] died tomorrow, it wouldn't upset me the slightest". It reminds me of my experiences with people who were suicidal or clinically depressed.
And i dont know how your mind has come up with words like 'death cults' "suicidal tendencies" "clinical depression' "charlatanism"...
When I link this...
"if [my children] died tomorrow, it wouldn't upset me the slightest"
to this...
...how you "don't care" if your children die in a nuclear holocaust "...because if everyone was to be incinerated this second, we would only take birth again somewhere else on a different planet, in a different universe"
and your references to rotting bodies and dust in the wind etc.
...it all brings the idea of 'death cult' to my mind. Why wouldn't it?
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobthen it is quite ok. i don't have the absolute definitve research that says dawkins at some point said or didn't say "god is 100% not real" (i tend to think he didn't say it).
He says, something along the lines of, 'i don't believe God exists but of course i can never state anything with 100% certainty', or something along those lines. I don't own a copy of the book to check.
Religious fundamentalists are 100% certain they are correct, there is a difference between the mindsets of Dawkins and fundamentalist religious folk.
i was just saying that atheist zealotryis harmful too
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by John W BoothYes, I see your point, and I guess some of my words were somewhat over bearing.
It was when you said "if [my children] died tomorrow, it wouldn't upset me the slightest". It reminds me of my experiences with people who were suicidal or clinically depressed.
When I link this...
[b]"if [my children] died tomorrow, it wouldn't upset me the slightest"
to this...
...how you "don't care" if your children die in a nuclear ...[text shortened]... ind etc.
...it all brings the idea of 'death cult' to my mind. Why wouldn't it?[/b]
And I didn't actually say I dont care if my children died in a nuclear blast,..... but I did say I dont care if everyone was incinerated this second, because everyone includes me as well, see the difference.
I can easily say that the passing of my child, does not affect me as it affects most people, because I have acquired the spiritual vision, which allows me to see the Truth of what is actually taking place, and not being upset doesnt mean I have no feelings about it. (I will always be a feeling person)
I will say it another way.......I dont care if the planet disappears this instance, because we are all eternal spiritual beings, and we will just all move on somewhere else because the soul is indestructible......thats a bit more to the point that i wanted to make.
You see death to me is as common place as birth, or as common place as catching a cold, and I have this outlook because I have practiced the spiritual life for many years, and death does not shock me or even bother me, even my own death.
Dont get the wrong impression that I am consumed with thoughts of death, because Iam not, but I am just making a point about the certainty of the demise of the material body at the end of this temporary life.
I have died and have been re-born many, many, many times before, and so has everyone else including your good self.....its part of the cycle of life, and as soon as a baby is born, the clock is ticking down to their departure from that life.
I have told no one this, but when I was 42 I was dead for about 8 minutes, and in that space of time, I was fully conscious and aware.....then the doctors brought me back.
Life after the death of the body is a fact, but taking birth again in this world, over and over again is not the purpose of our life, but the purpose of our life is to regain our dormant affection with God, and return back home to the spiritual world.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have the book with me and this is how Dawkins catergorises the various beliefs:
He says, something along the lines of, 'i don't believe God exists but of course i can never state anything with 100% certainty', or something along those lines. I don't own a copy of the book to check.
Religious fundamentalists are 100% certain they are correct, there is a difference between the mindsets of Dawkins and fundamentalist religious folk.
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know."
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbably, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
He then goes on to say this:
I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a load bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetudid you research at what age can a child be safely brought up with a vegetarian diet? does mother breast milk satisfy this insane notion of yours? if it doesn't, did you know that in most civilized countries you can be charged with child abuse for starving your child? and that a no meat diet does constitutes as starvation?
I will tell you a simple truth:
If you instruct any person, even your own child in your care against their will, they will close themselves off to you and become firmly fixed in opposition against you.
With children (especially in this age of Kali Yuga) ....you must let them approach you, when the time of questioning the life around them arises, an ...[text shortened]... endencies" "clinical depression' "charlatanism".....this sounds like digging to me.
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuany parent that will not mourn the passing of his child is a bastard.
Yes, I see your point, and I guess some of my words were somewhat over bearing.
And I didn't actually say I dont care if my children died in a nuclear blast,..... but I did say I dont care if everyone was incinerated this second, because everyone includes me as well, see the difference.
I can easily say that the passing of my child, does not affec ...[text shortened]... life is to regain our dormant affection with God, and return back home to the spiritual world.
any human that will not feel empathy over the passing of another is seriously messed up.
this is what i know for certain. kind of like how you know for certain earth is trillions of years old
10 Dec 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziI say let the dead bury the dead.
any parent that will not mourn the passing of his child is a bastard.
any human that will not feel empathy over the passing of another is seriously messed up.
this is what i know for certain. kind of like how you know for certain earth is trillions of years old